SYLLOGOS / CRAF 4.0democratizing research

Assess the study.Examine its quality.

Syllogos provides a structured, evidence-linked assessment of a study’s methods, evidentiary support, contribution, coherence, sources, and limitations. CRAF 4.0 is informed by criteria commonly considered in rigorous peer review, including at journals ranked in the first quartile (Q1).

Start freeExplore the assessment

AI structures the assessment · You retain scholarly responsibility

FRAMEWORKCRAF 4.0DIMENSIONS10 evaluatedBANDS5 quality levelsROLEResearcher-led

Syllogos

Fig. 01Eight assessment workflows and source comparison, available without leaving the material you are reading.

FILM 01/Product overview

See what rigorous research assessment looks like in practice.

A guided introduction to the reasoning behind Syllogos, the CRAF 4.0 framework, and the evidence-linked workflow that keeps scholarly judgment in your hands.

Syllogos / Overview02:50

Three minutes on why research quality deserves more than a summary.

4K product film

Film 01Why Syllogos — a guided product overview

Sound on · Fullscreen available

01/Beyond summarization

A paper is more than its findings. Evaluate its quality.

CRAF 4.0 examines methods, evidence, originality, theory, literature, sources, writing, peer-review status, reflexivity, and ethical or institutional standards in one structured assessment.

A1 · Detection

Assessment begins where reading happens

Bring in a screen, PDF, DOI, file, or pasted text. Syllogos organizes the material for assessment without forcing you to rebuild your workflow around the application.

A2 · Analysis

Peer-review criteria, made explicit

Examine methods, validity, novelty, coherence, sources, bias, or run the complete CRAF 4.0 assessment. Each action presents its criteria, evidence, and limitations in a structured form.

A3 · Native

Collaboration, not replacement

Artificial intelligence organizes and analyzes the evidence; the researcher examines the result, supplies disciplinary context, and remains responsible for its interpretation.

SUMMON

Ctrl ⇧ Space

FOOTPRINT

~85 MB

DETECTION

OCR + title

OUTPUT

Researcher-led

Democratizing Research

Rigorous assessment should be accessible to more researchers.

Critical appraisal develops through sustained peer review, methodological training, and disciplinary practice. Syllogos makes those evaluative criteria more explicit and easier to apply while preserving the researcher’s responsibility for interpretation.

Review-informed criteria

The questions used in rigorous peer review become explicit and learnable.

Structured evidence

Every assessment connects its reasoning to the study in front of you.

Multiple perspectives

Five research paradigms open each assessment to dialogue and challenge.

Researcher responsibility

Interpretation and research decisions remain with the researcher.

CRAF/the assessment framework

Ten dimensions. Five bands. 0–10.

CRAF 4.0 does not reduce a study to an isolated score. It connects methodology, validity, contribution, theory, literature, sources, writing, peer status, bias, and institutional or ethical standards in one multidimensional assessment.

Composite0.0/ 10.0Strong

Dimension reading01 / 10

Methodological rigor

8.6

Strongobserved criterion

Evidence observed

Pre-registered design with a power analysis

02/Assessment, made transparent

See how expert evaluation takes shape

Syllogos follows a transparent appraisal sequence: identify the evidence, apply explicit criteria, determine the quality band, and present an assessment for the researcher to examine.

Structured assessment in progressCRAF / 4.0.0

PASS 01 / SOURCE

SOURCE / METHODS / P. 08DOI 10.7717/peerj.2026.041

We conducted a multicentre, pre-registered study across four research hospitals. The primary outcome and exclusion criteria were specified before data collection.

Sample size was established through an a priori power analysis targeting 90% power at α = .05.E1

Missing observations were handled using multiple imputation. Attrition was reported by site, although two withdrawals were not assigned a reason.

pre-registeredpower analysismulticentreattrition gap

Evidence ledger

Four claims located.
One limitation retained.

E1Study design

E2Sample justification

E3Outcome specification

E4Missing-data handling

The evidence is organized so the researcher can inspect, question, and interpret the assessment.

03/Human-led assessment

Built for transparent assessment, not automatic conclusions

Syllogos does not present AI output as a definitive conclusion. It organizes evidence, explains the assessment, and keeps every finding open to review, dialogue, and challenge.

Assessment excerpt / Methods & Validity

“The authors report a pre-registered protocol and justify the sample size through an a priori power analysis.”

SCORE

8.6

BAND

Strong

CONFIDENCE

High

Evidence before conclusion

The assessment identifies what in the study supports each finding, so its reasoning can be examined rather than accepted uncritically.

Context shapes evaluation

Research is assessed in relation to its field, epistemic assumptions, methods, and the traditions of knowledge in which it operates.

Limits remain visible

Possible bias, missing evidence, methodological limits, and unresolved questions remain part of the report instead of being hidden by a score.

04/Assessment in practice

Six windows into human-AI research evaluation

From first input to dialogic review, each screen supports one purpose: making rigorous research assessment clearer, faster, and more accessible.

Syllogos | Idle←→to navigate

Syllogos desktop app idle state with a frameless overlay, empty paste surface, and sidebar

Fig. 01 | Idle

Assessment available inside the reading moment

Open Syllogos over the source when you need it, then hide it without interrupting the work in front of you.

Works where the literature already lives

JSTORarXivPubMedSpringerIEEEScienceDirectScopusWeb of ScienceResearchGate

05/How it works

From source to informed scholarly interpretation

A continuous path from reading to structured evaluation, dialogue, comparison, and a better-informed research decision.

Bring in the research

Use the screen, a PDF or file, a DOI, or pasted text without leaving your reading workflow.

Choose the assessment

Select a quick overview, a focused evaluation, a complete CRAF report, or comparison between sources.

Examine the report

Review the score, quality band, evidence, strengths, weaknesses, limitations, and questions for deeper reading.

Engage and compare

Question the assessment through five research paradigms, then compare studies when claims or conclusions diverge.