Is unpublished work confidential?

Unpublished material is never used to train any AI model, which is the question that matters when the work is not yet in the public record. A pseudonymization layer replaces personal and institutional identifiers with reversible tokens before anything reaches a model, and restores them only in your result — automated detection reduces what reaches a provider, though it cannot guarantee elimination. Each deliberation leaves a timestamped record you can retrieve by ID. Retention periods and Zero Data Retention mode are set out in our Privacy Policy.

Does it replace peer review?

No. It is the review you can run before submission: five independent readings of the design and the claim, with the objection a referee would raise preserved rather than resolved. Authorship and responsibility for the work remain entirely yours.

What does it cost on a grant budget?

The estimate is shown before the deliberation runs, reserved at launch, settled on completion, with any excess refunded, so it is a costable line rather than a subscription. Current rates are on the pricing page.

Who it's for / Research Institutions & Academia

Pilot5.ai for Who?

Research Institutions & Academia

Peer review is the oldest deliberation protocol in the world.
Five independent AI models run it before you submit.

For the principal investigator framing the hypothesis. For the postdoc who has to defend the methods section. For the research office that owns the application after the lab has moved on to the next call.

Analysis grounded in the published literature and primary sources. Arguments that survive peer review and the funding panel. Absolute confidentiality on unpublished work. A record of reasoning for the file and for co-authors — and a tool that arms scientific judgment instead of replacing it.

A single AI gives one confident answer, in the same tone whether it cites the literature or invents it — and a model trained to agree with you validates your hypothesis instead of testing it. On a proposal that carries a year of the lab's future, that is a risk.

Step 1

The companion builds the brief with you.

The hypothesis and the claim you intend to make. The design — methods, power, novelty. The literature you are arguing against. The call you are writing to, and the panel that has to score it.

Step 2

Research and retrieval fire in parallel.

PubMed — the published biomedical and life-sciences literature
ClinicalTrials.gov — registered trials, endpoints and reported results
USPTO — prior art and the patent landscape around a claim
GAO — oversight and evaluation of publicly funded programs
Federal Register — US agency rulemaking, funding notices and research policy
OECD — comparative research and innovation statistics
EUR-Lex — EU legislation governing research and cross-border collaboration

Every claim carries a provenance tag. [SOURCED] means traced to a verified reference. [INFERRED] means analytical inference — flagged automatically. Claims that cannot be traced are labelled as inference, never presented as fact.

Step 3

Five frontier AI perspectives deliberate, each through a calibrated mandate.

The Architect maps the design — hypothesis, methods, power, and where the study actually tests what it claims to test.
The Strategist reads the field, the novelty claim and the funding call this proposal has to win.
The Engineer works the numbers — sample size, statistics, and the sensitivity of the result you are reporting.
The Counsel surfaces confidentiality, ethics approval, authorship and what a reviewer would question first.
The Contrarian sole mandate: argue this finding does not replicate, and name the reviewer objection that sinks it.

Five complete analyses. Five distinct angles. Not five versions of the same answer. Then they challenge each other, anonymously. Then they converge — and when one perspective refuses to, that dissent is preserved rather than averaged away.

Output:GO / PIVOT / NO GO / INSUFFICIENT BASIS · Confidence score · Decision matrix · Minority Report · Testable predictions.

Questions Pilot5.ai helps with

Is this design powered to detect the effect we are claiming, or only to report one?
What is genuinely novel here against the published literature, and what has already been done?
Where would a funding panel score this proposal down first?
What are the methods objections a reviewer will raise, and can we answer them before submission?
What is the strongest case that this manuscript is not ready to enter review?

Common questions

Is unpublished work confidential?: Unpublished material is never used to train any AI model, which is the question that matters when the work is not yet in the public record. A pseudonymization layer replaces personal and institutional identifiers with reversible tokens before anything reaches a model, and restores them only in your result — automated detection reduces what reaches a provider, though it cannot guarantee elimination. Each deliberation leaves a timestamped record you can retrieve by ID. Retention periods and Zero Data Retention mode are set out in our Privacy Policy.
Does it replace peer review?: No. It is the review you can run before submission: five independent readings of the design and the claim, with the objection a referee would raise preserved rather than resolved. Authorship and responsibility for the work remain entirely yours.
What does it cost on a grant budget?: The estimate is shown before the deliberation runs, reserved at launch, settled on completion, with any excess refunded, so it is a costable line rather than a subscription. Current rates are on the pricing page.

Do not take our word for it. Run your own deliberation on a question you know well.

Read how five independent models handle it, then decide what it is worth.

Pilot5 delivers analysis. You deliver judgment.

Disagree to decide.

Start a Research Deliberation

Read: AI decisions need an audit trail →·Read: the verified sources library →·Read: run it from your own AI →

Pilot5.ai produces AI-assisted analysis. It is not a substitute for professional advice or independent scientific review. Outputs are research and decision-support only, and must be reviewed by a qualified researcher before submission or publication.