← All resources

10 Academic Research Tools for Faster, Rigorous Work

25 min read
academic research toolsresearch softwareliterature reviewdata analysis toolsacademic writing
10 Academic Research Tools for Faster, Rigorous Work

The strongest academic research tools form a connected workflow, not a single best app. Semantic Scholar, Connected Papers, Elicit, SciSpace, and scite support discovery and evidence assessment, Zotero manages sources, JASP and PlotStudio support analysis, OSF supports research objects, and Overleaf supports manuscript production. PlotStudio is the most relevant choice when the bottleneck is a rigorous, reproducible analysis rather than a single answer.

The popular advice is to find one AI assistant that “does research.” That advice fails under deadline pressure because research isn't one task. Discovery, screening, citation verification, statistical analysis, documentation, and manuscript production have different failure modes. A fluent summary can still miss a counterargument. A clean chart can still use an unsuitable test. A polished manuscript can still lack an auditable path from raw data to conclusion.

PlotStudio connects the analysis stage to that standard. Its agentic analytics workflow plans an investigation, writes and runs real Python locally, checks the output, and saves a structured Analysis Page instead of leaving you with a disposable chat answer. An answer is a data point. An analysis is actionable, reproducible intelligence. Explore PlotStudio when your research needs local execution, inspectable code, and a persistent record.

This roundup evaluates each tool by its place in the research lifecycle, practical fit, implementation friction, collaboration, and limitations. The useful question isn't which platform has the longest feature list. It's which tool gets the current stage right, hands reliable outputs to the next stage, and leaves enough provenance for another researcher to inspect your work.

Table of Contents

1. PlotStudio AI

PlotStudio fits the point in a research workflow where the bottleneck is analysis rather than retrieval. Give the desktop application a dataset and a research question in plain English, and it can develop a multi-step investigation instead of producing one conversational answer. It profiles the data, proposes a methodology, writes and runs Python in a local embedded engine, inspects the results, self-corrects when necessary, and saves an Analysis Page containing narrative, charts, statistical tests, and code.

That workflow matters because applied research questions rarely end with a single calculation. A churn analysis may require data-quality checks, missing-value treatment, feature comparisons, a train/test split, model diagnostics, effect interpretation, and caveats. An A/B test readout may require clear group definitions, balance checks, uncertainty estimates, effect sizes, and a separation between statistical and practical significance. PlotStudio is built to work through those connected steps.

PlotStudio AI

Where PlotStudio earns its place

Plan Mode keeps study design reviewable before execution. Researchers can inspect, edit, and approve the proposed plan when the system's first interpretation does not fit the research question or design. Domain Intelligence supports field-specific methods, including IV/2SLS and fixed-effects approaches for causal work, GARCH models for volatility, and Cox proportional hazards models for survival analysis. This makes the tool more suitable for method-sensitive investigations than a generic dashboard that applies the same routine to every dataset.

The result remains useful after the initial run. Each Analysis Page stores the interpretation, plots, statistics, and inspectable Python. Researchers can export a PDF report or reproducible Jupyter notebook, modify work in the built-in code editor, and connect later investigations through workspace knowledge, @-mentions, and Workspace Insights.

Practical rule: Treat an autonomous result as a documented first analysis. Domain review still determines whether the methods and conclusions are defensible.

Trade-offs for researchers

Local execution can suit sensitive datasets because the data stays on the researcher's machine, while AI calls go directly from the device to a SOC 2-certified model provider. Teams with different governance requirements can use a bring-your-own-key setup, and enterprise deployments can use Azure OpenAI within their own tenant. The trade-off is operational: local resources and model access remain part of setup, and high-stakes analyses still need independent methodological verification.

An independent review by Lorenzo Fiorio at The Effortless Academic tested PlotStudio with research datasets and described it as a purpose-built, analyst-grade alternative to general chatbot workflows. The distinction is practical. Chat-based data assistance may suggest code or explain an output, whereas PlotStudio plans, executes, checks, narrates, and preserves the investigation for inspection and later handoff.

Pros

  • Agentic workflow: Plans, codes, executes, self-checks, and interprets multi-step analyses.
  • Research transparency: Keeps Python inspectable and supports PDF and Jupyter exports.
  • Privacy-first execution: Runs analysis locally, with BYOK and Azure OpenAI options.
  • Domain awareness: Applies specialized methods when the research question demands them.
  • Persistent knowledge: Saves investigations as searchable Analysis Pages rather than ephemeral chats.

Cons

  • Pricing discovery: Detailed pricing and licensing typically require a demo or enterprise conversation.
  • Execution requirements: Researchers must account for local resources and verify important methodological decisions independently.

2. Zotero

Zotero is the infrastructure layer for source management. It doesn't discover a research gap for you or analyze a dataset, but it prevents the literature review from dissolving into browser tabs, downloaded PDFs, and inconsistent filenames. Its browser capture tools save metadata and papers from webpages and academic databases, while collections, tags, notes, and saved searches turn a growing source pile into a working library.

The strongest use case is a literature review that will become a paper, thesis chapter, or report. Zotero's integrations with Word, Google Docs, and LibreOffice let you insert citations while drafting and generate a bibliography in the required style. Group libraries support collaboration, so a supervisor, coauthor, or research assistant can work from a shared reference collection rather than exchange citation files manually.

What works well

Zotero is free and open source, with a large user community and a straightforward capture workflow. Metadata quality can still vary, especially for obscure repositories or older records, so researchers should inspect author names, publication details, DOI fields, and page ranges before submission. The tool reduces clerical work, but it doesn't remove bibliographic quality control.

Cloud synchronization makes a library available across devices. File storage beyond the included quota requires a paid storage tier, although users can separate metadata synchronization from PDF storage and may choose external or self-hosted file arrangements. That flexibility is useful for researchers with institutional storage or strict data-management requirements.

Zotero should be the system of record for your sources, not the place where you assume every imported metadata field is correct.

The interface can overwhelm first-time users because it exposes a lot of organizational control. The payoff comes after the initial setup, particularly once collections, citation styles, and group-library conventions are established. For practical guidance on combining source management with analysis, see this guide to AI for PhD students.

Best fit: literature reviews, collaborative bibliographies, dissertation projects, and any manuscript with a demanding citation style.

Main limitation: Zotero organizes evidence. It doesn't evaluate whether a cited result supports your argument, and it won't replace a documented screening or verification process.

Visit Zotero to build the reference layer before your reading list becomes unmanageable.

3. Overleaf

Overleaf solves a production problem that often appears late and becomes expensive to fix. It provides a cloud-based LaTeX editor for papers, theses, reports, and technical documents, so collaborators can work in one project without maintaining identical local LaTeX installations. For mathematics, statistics, computer science, and disciplines with complex equations or cross-referenced figures, that shared environment can be more reliable than passing source files between contributors.

Real-time collaboration, comments, and tracked changes make it suitable for distributed research teams. The template gallery helps researchers start from journal, conference, thesis, or institutional formats instead of assembling document structure from scratch. Cloud compilation removes the need to configure a local toolchain, which is valuable when a coauthor needs to edit prose or references but doesn't want to debug a LaTeX environment.

Where it fits in a defensible workflow

Overleaf works best after the evidence and analysis have stabilized enough to support manuscript assembly. Figures exported from PlotStudio, JASP, R, or Python can be added to the project, while tables and equations remain reproducible within the document source. GitHub and Git integrations offer a path for teams that already manage code and manuscript history through version control.

The limitation is collaboration depth on lower-cost plans. Some advanced history, review, and team functions require a paid plan, and offline editing is less capable than a fully local editor. Researchers working during travel or with unreliable connectivity should keep a local copy of critical source files and generated figures.

A common mistake is to treat Overleaf as a research-management tool. It isn't a replacement for Zotero, OSF, or a code repository. It is the manuscript production environment that receives verified sources, approved analyses, and documented research objects.

Best fit: technical manuscripts, coauthored papers, theses, and teams that need shared LaTeX compilation.

Main limitation: it makes writing collaboration easier, but it can't validate your statistical methods or guarantee that a figure still matches the underlying analysis.

Use Overleaf when the document itself demands structured typesetting and collaborative control.

4. Semantic Scholar Including Semantic Reader

Semantic Scholar is a useful first stop when you need to build a reading list before you know the field's preferred terminology. Its AI-assisted search, author pages, citation data, personalized feeds, open datasets, and APIs support exploratory discovery and more systematic corpus building. It does not replace a database search strategy, but it can expose related vocabulary and papers that keyword searches miss.

Semantic Reader shifts the task from finding papers to deciding which ones deserve close reading. In supported PDFs, citation cards, skimming highlights, and AI-generated TL;DRs reduce triage time. Citation cards are particularly helpful because they show the context around a cited work, rather than sending you immediately between documents.

Strengths and limits

The service is free and broad, so it works well for students, independent researchers, and teams assembling an initial corpus. Personalized feeds and alerts help maintain awareness after the first search, while author and citation views support backward and forward tracing.

Coverage is uneven. Semantic Reader features are unavailable for some papers, and metadata quality varies across fields. The platform handles discovery and reading triage better than cross-document evidence extraction. A TL;DR can help prioritize a paper, but it should not supply the wording you cite or stand in for reading the methods section.

Use Semantic Scholar to decide what to read next. Use the original paper to decide what you believe.

A defensible handoff is straightforward: search broadly, save candidates to Zotero, trace foundational and newer work through citation links, then send selected papers to Elicit or scite for structured comparison and evidence checking. PlotStudio's local, agentic workflow serves a different stage. It works with local research data and analysis tasks under the researcher's control, rather than providing chat-based assistance for interpreting a discovery set.

Use Semantic Scholar for broad scholarly search and reading aids, then verify every claim against the paper itself.

5. Elicit by Ought

Elicit is most valuable when a literature review moves from “find papers” to compare studies systematically. Its natural-language search helps researchers locate relevant work, while assisted screening and extraction support a structured review process. The tool can organize study details into tables, extract methods and outcomes, and produce multi-page literature review reports.

That workflow suits a scoping review or early systematic review in which the main burden is comparing papers consistently. A researcher might create columns for population, intervention, outcome, design, or limitation, then inspect how studies differ rather than relying on a stack of individual summaries. Elicit's structured presentation makes it easier to identify missing fields and inconsistent terminology.

Where human review remains essential

Elicit can accelerate screening, but it doesn't make inclusion decisions automatically defensible. The researcher still needs a documented protocol, explicit criteria, and a check against the full text where abstracts omit important details. The tool's own emphasis on evaluation and screening transparency is useful, but performance can vary across domains and question types.

The evidence problem is also broader than extraction accuracy. A table may faithfully summarize what papers report while still hiding differences in study quality, measurement, sampling, or causal identification. A synthesis becomes rigorous only when the researcher examines those differences and explains how they affect the conclusion.

Use Elicit after an initial discovery pass with Semantic Scholar or another scholarly index, then store accepted sources and notes in Zotero. For a related workflow, see this guide to AI for literature review.

Best fit: evidence screening, study comparison, structured extraction, and literature-review preparation.

Main limitation: it is not a substitute for a reproducible search protocol, full-text assessment, or expert interpretation.

Explore Elicit when your literature review needs a comparison table rather than another list of paper summaries.

6. SciSpace Copilot

SciSpace is a reading-centric tool for papers that are technically dense, outside your primary field, or difficult to parse quickly. Copilot works inside the SciSpace environment and can answer questions about text, mathematical notation, and tables. It also surfaces related papers and concepts, which helps a researcher move from a confusing passage to the background needed to understand it.

The most useful scenario is interdisciplinary onboarding. A public-health researcher reading an unfamiliar econometrics paper, or a social scientist trying to understand a technical machine-learning methods section, can ask for an explanation of a passage without leaving the document. That lowers the cost of initial comprehension, especially when the paper's notation or terminology creates friction before the substantive contribution becomes clear.

Reading assistance isn't evidence validation

SciSpace works best as an interpretive aid, not as a replacement for close reading. Explanations can vary by domain and section, and the platform is most effective when the paper is available inside its interface. An explanation of a statistical method may be clear but still omit assumptions, identification conditions, or limitations that matter to your own research question.

Keep the original PDF open. Check definitions, sample descriptions, model specifications, and reported limitations against the source before adding a claim to your notes. A useful practice is to save the explanation as a prompt for reading, then write your own evidence note in Zotero with page-level references.

Best fit: understanding unfamiliar papers, decoding mathematical or tabular content, and accelerating interdisciplinary reading.

Main limitation: the quality of an explanation can vary, and comprehension support is not the same as evidence assessment.

Try SciSpace when the barrier is understanding a paper, not locating the paper in the first place.

7. scite

scite addresses a narrow but consequential question: how have later papers used this citation? Its Smart Citations distinguish supporting, mentioning, and contradicting citation contexts, allowing researchers to inspect the treatment of a claim rather than rely on a raw citation count. The platform also supports searches over citation statements, dashboards, alerts, and an assistant grounded in citation evidence.

That makes scite useful for due diligence. Before building an argument around a seminal result, you can check whether later work supports the finding, challenges its interpretation, or cites it as background. The same process helps identify counterevidence that keyword searches may bury under a large body of routine citations.

The citation label is a starting point

A supportive or contradicting classification still needs human inspection. Citation context can be truncated, the later paper may discuss a different aspect of the original work, and a disagreement may concern design or scope rather than the core result. Researchers should open the citing paper and read the relevant passage before changing a theoretical or empirical claim.

Coverage also varies by publisher and field. Some advanced features require paid access, so scite is best treated as a targeted verification layer rather than the only literature database in a project.

A strong sequence is simple:

  • Identify central claims: Mark the papers your argument depends on.
  • Inspect citation contexts: Look for support, qualification, and contradiction.
  • Read the primary passages: Confirm that the classification matches the substantive claim.
  • Record the result: Store the verification note alongside the source in Zotero.

Visit scite when citation quality matters more than citation volume.

8. Connected Papers

Connected Papers is a visual discovery tool for mapping a research area around a seed paper. Instead of returning another ranked list, it builds a graph of closely related work, helping researchers see clusters, seminal studies, adjacent methods, and possible gaps. That visual structure is particularly useful when entering an unfamiliar subfield or when keyword searches produce a narrow, vocabulary-dependent result set.

Start with an anchor paper that is clearly relevant to your question. Use the graph to trace backward toward foundational work and forward toward newer studies, then inspect repeated authors, methodological clusters, and papers that sit between groups. The graph isn't a literature review, but it can expose relationships that are difficult to see in a flat bibliography.

What the graph can't tell you

Connected Papers depends on its underlying metadata and citation relationships, so graph quality varies. Semantic similarity can also group papers that share language without sharing a research design, population, or evidentiary standard. A visually central paper isn't automatically the most credible or methodologically important source.

The free plan has restrictions on graph creation, which can matter during an intensive review. Export and sharing support collaboration, but the resulting map should feed a documented search process rather than replace it. Save relevant papers to Zotero, then use Elicit for structured extraction and scite for citation-context checks.

Best fit: field orientation, citation snowballing, identifying related clusters, and finding literature beyond your initial search vocabulary.

Main limitation: a graph reveals relationships, not validity, and its coverage depends on metadata and citation links.

Explore Connected Papers when you need to understand the shape of a field before deciding which papers deserve detailed review.

9. OSF by the Center for Open Science

OSF fits near the end of the research lifecycle because it manages research objects and openness, not only literature. It supports study planning, preregistration, community-run preprint services, and connections between research records and interoperable services such as Zenodo. Use it when a project needs a durable public record for protocols, materials, data documentation, and related outputs.

Preregistration gives collaborators and readers a reference point when confirmatory and exploratory work must remain distinct. Recording the question, outcome definitions, and analysis plan makes later deviations easier to interpret. OSF can also connect those materials so the manuscript is one artifact among several, rather than the project's only visible output.

Plan for the platform transition

OSF's active collaboration and storage strategy is changing. According to the OSF platform transition guidance, new OSF Projects creation is scheduled to end on November 16, 2026, and all Projects are planned to become read-only on February 19, 2027. Researchers who need active collaboration or storage should assess integrated services and define a migration path before starting a project.

Registrations and preprints remain supported, so the platform still has a role in public research records. The practical distinction is between OSF functions that remain available and project features that may require another storage or collaboration service. Check that distinction before committing data, permissions, and team workflows to a new project.

A reproducible analysis exported from PlotStudio as a Jupyter notebook can sit alongside the protocol, data dictionary, and manuscript. PlotStudio's local, agentic analytics workflow differs from chat-based data assistance by producing executable analysis artifacts that can be reviewed and transferred into the wider research record. Human authors still need to document decisions, maintain version control, and verify the exported work. See this guide to research reproducibility for the connection between analysis outputs and research documentation.

Best fit: preregistration, public research records, preprints, and linking research outputs.

Main limitation: the planned project-transition deadlines require active users to plan storage and collaboration migration.

Visit OSF before launching a project that depends on long-term research-object management.

10. JASP

JASP is a strong choice for researchers who need statistical analysis without committing every step to a code-first workflow. Its graphical interface supports classical and Bayesian analyses, including t-tests, ANOVA, regression, mixed models, and assumption checks. It also produces publication-ready tables and figures, with analysis snapshots that make the workflow easier to inspect than an undocumented spreadsheet.

The Bayesian modules are a meaningful differentiator for teaching, preregistered studies, and researchers who want to compare classical and Bayesian interpretations in one environment. JASP is approachable for non-coders, but its interface doesn't remove the need to understand model assumptions, estimands, missingness, or the difference between an exploratory pattern and a confirmatory result.

JASP versus agentic analytics

JASP is explicit and user-directed. You select the analysis, configure options, inspect output, and decide what to report. PlotStudio is more autonomous. Its agentic analytics workflow can interpret a plain-English research question, build a plan, write and execute Python locally, check its work, and save an Analysis Page containing the narrative, plots, statistics, and code.

That difference matters when the work involves dataset profiling, repeated transformations, cross-dataset joins, or specialized methods. JASP remains a good fit for a clearly specified confirmatory analysis and for teaching statistical reasoning. PlotStudio is more useful when the analytical path itself requires investigation and documentation.

JASP has fewer niche models than the wider R and Python ecosystems, and its automation and integration are more limited than code-first tools. Still, it is free, open source, cross-platform, and practical for many conventional analyses. Researchers comparing options for social-science workflows can also consult this guide to social science data analysis software.

Best fit: classical and Bayesian point-and-click statistics, teaching, transparent confirmatory analysis, and publication-ready standard outputs.

Main limitation: advanced or unusual models may require a code-first environment, and the researcher must design the analytical sequence manually.

Use JASP when you know the model you need. Choose PlotStudio when discovering and defending the model path is part of the job.

Top 10 Academic Research Tools, Feature Comparison

Tool Core use / Value proposition Unique features ✨ Target audience 👥 Quality ★ Price 💰
🏆 PlotStudio AI Agentic analytics: plain-English → publication-ready analyses (code, charts, narrative) ✨ Domain Intelligence (IV/2SLS, GARCH, Cox); Plan & Verification Mode; local execution; inspectable Python; workspace memory 👥 Analysts, researchers, data scientists, teams ★★★★★ (researcher-grade) 💰 Demo/enterprise; trial & BYOK
Zotero Reference capture, organize, cite, & share sources ✨ One-click metadata/PDF capture; word-processor plugins; group libraries 👥 Students, researchers, librarians ★★★★☆ 💰 Free core (paid storage tiers)
Overleaf Cloud LaTeX editor for writing & collaborative papers ✨ Real-time collaboration; templates; cloud compile; GitHub integration 👥 Academics writing LaTeX (math, CS, stats) ★★★★☆ 💰 Freemium; institutional plans
Semantic Scholar AI-enhanced scholarly search & reading aids ✨ Semantic Reader: citation cards, skimming highlights, TL;DRs 👥 Researchers keeping current; literature discovery ★★★★☆ 💰 Free
Elicit (by Ought) AI assistant for literature & systematic review workflows ✨ NL paper search; assisted screening/extraction; auto review drafts 👥 Systematic reviewers, evidence syntheses ★★★★☆ 💰 Freemium (usage limits)
SciSpace (Copilot) In‑PDF Q&A and explanations to speed paper comprehension ✨ In‑PDF Q&A (text, math, tables); related-work surfacing 👥 Readers of technical papers, interdisciplinary teams ★★★★☆ 💰 Freemium
scite Literature intelligence focused on citation context & evidence ✨ Smart Citations (support/mention/contradict); citation dashboards 👥 Due-diligence teams, reviewers, researchers ★★★★☆ 💰 Freemium (paid advanced)
Connected Papers Visual graph of related literature to map a topic quickly ✨ Related‑paper graphs; backward/forward lineage; exportable maps 👥 Researchers onboarding to a subfield ★★★★☆ 💰 Freemium (limits)
OSF (Open Science Framework) Open-science infrastructure for preregistration & sharing ✨ Registrations, preprints, linkable research objects 👥 Open‑science projects, labs, funders ★★★★☆ 💰 Free (public); migration notes
JASP Point-and-click statistics (classical & Bayesian) with reproducible outputs ✨ GUI for t-tests/ANOVA/regression; Bayesian modules; APA tables 👥 Non-coding researchers, instructors, students ★★★★☆ 💰 Free, open-source

Build the Smallest Stack That Preserves Rigor

A useful research stack is deliberately modular. Start discovery with Semantic Scholar when you need broad scholarly search, or Connected Papers when a strong seed article can reveal the surrounding field. Use Elicit for screening and structured extraction, then use scite to check whether central claims have been supported, qualified, or contradicted by later literature. Zotero should hold the sources, notes, and citation metadata that survive from the first search to the final draft.

Analysis deserves a separate decision. JASP is appropriate when the design and model are already clear and a transparent graphical workflow is enough. PlotStudio is the better fit when the question is open-ended, the dataset needs investigation, or the workflow must preserve planning, local execution, self-checking, inspectable Python, and a persistent Analysis Page.

The distinction between agentic analytics and chat-with-your-data assistance is practical, not semantic. A chat tool translates a question into an answer and often leaves the researcher to manage the next steps. PlotStudio delegates a connected investigation, including data profiling, methodology planning, code execution, verification, interpretation, and export. The saved Analysis Page compounds knowledge over time instead of disappearing into a long conversation.

A defensible stack might look like this:

  • Discovery: Semantic Scholar or Connected Papers for the initial corpus and field map.
  • Screening: Elicit for structured comparison and evidence extraction.
  • Citation verification: scite for citation context and counterevidence checks.
  • Source management: Zotero for metadata, notes, group libraries, and manuscript citations.
  • Statistical analysis: JASP for explicit standard analyses, or PlotStudio for autonomous, multi-step, local Python analysis.
  • Research objects: OSF for preregistration, registrations, preprints, and linked outputs, with migration planning where required.
  • Manuscript production: Overleaf for collaborative LaTeX writing, figures, tables, and final document structure.

A practical selection checklist

Before adopting a tool, ask whether it meets the actual risk profile of the project.

  • Methodological fit: Does it support the design, estimand, assumptions, and domain-specific methods you need?
  • Provenance: Can you trace a claim, figure, transformation, or citation back to its source?
  • Exportability: Can you preserve code, data-processing steps, figures, and analysis outputs outside the application?
  • Privacy: Does sensitive data remain under an acceptable execution and retention model?
  • Collaboration: Can supervisors, coauthors, reviewers, or future researchers inspect and extend the work?
  • Human review: Does the workflow make it easy to challenge the tool's choices before publication?

The reproducibility question is often harder than the speed question. Research software guidance continues to identify weak documentation, citation, versioning, and archival practices as gaps in the scientific tooling ecosystem. A fast result that cannot be rerun or audited later creates work for your future self and uncertainty for everyone who reads the paper.

That is why PlotStudio's local and persistent design matters. The generated Python remains inspectable, the analysis can be exported to a Jupyter notebook and PDF, and the Analysis Page preserves the chain from question to result. The researcher still owns the design judgment, interpretation, and final claims, but the mechanical path becomes easier to review.

An independent review by Lorenzo Fiorio in The Effortless Academic provides useful third-party context for this positioning. The review examined PlotStudio's use with research datasets and treated it as an analyst-grade tool built for dedicated data work rather than a general chatbot conversation.

The best academic research tools won't eliminate methodological responsibility. They make responsibility easier to exercise by separating discovery from verification, analysis from writing, and automation from judgment. Build the smallest stack that covers those stages, preserve every important artifact, and choose PlotStudio when your central need is a rigorous analysis that can still be inspected months after the deadline.

For researchers who want to test that workflow, 1,000 free credits for researchers provides a low-pressure way to try PlotStudio on real analytical work.

PlotStudio AI offers agentic analytics for researchers who want an AI analyst to plan, execute, verify, and preserve a complete analysis locally, with inspectable Python and exportable Analysis Pages. If your current stack finds and organizes the literature but leaves the hardest data work in fragmented notebooks or chat windows, visit PlotStudio AI and see whether its reproducible workflow fits your next project.

10 Academic Research Tools for Faster, Rigorous Work | PlotStudio AI