For Researchers
Map what the literature says to each other, not just to you.
Scopic gives every source, concept, and claim its own record — and every relationship between them a name and a type you can filter.
Join waitlistThe situation
You are mapping a field. Your reading notes live in one tool. Your conceptual diagram lives in another, drawn once and never updated as your understanding changes. The connection between two papers — that one challenges the other, that one builds directly on the other's method — exists only in your head or in a footnote you will forget.
When you are synthesising across fifty sources, the relationships between those sources are the research. Which findings support each other, which contradict, which are based on incompatible assumptions. Most tools let you organise your sources. None of them let you map the space between them.
The relationship between sources is the research
In Scopic, the connection between two papers is a record. Name it 'challenges', 'replicates', 'extends', 'contradicts'. Filter your map to show only the 'challenges' connections and see which findings are contested. Filter to 'builds on' and trace a methodological lineage. The structure of the literature becomes visible.
Screenshot: papers connected by typed relationships, filtered to one type
From map to database without rebuilding
Every source on the map is also a row in the database. Sort by year, filter by methodology, group by field or region. Open any source as a page and see all the papers that cite it, challenge it, or build on it. The map and the database hold the same material. No second tool, no separate spreadsheet.
Screenshot: sources as database rows with properties and connection count
Stakeholder and fieldwork maps alongside the literature
A single Scopic project holds your literature map, your stakeholder map, and your fieldwork notes — all in the same database, on different maps that share the same underlying data. Connect an actor from your fieldwork to a theoretical framework from your reading. The whole research project in one place.
Screenshot: fieldwork actors connected to theoretical frameworks
What people say
Six months of literature notes in Scopic. The map of which papers challenge which is the most useful thing I've built for my PhD. I couldn't see that structure before.
2 months ago
I used to keep separate Zotero, Notion, and Miro tabs open while writing. Now I work in one Scopic project and the map is my working document.
1 month ago
Named my connection types on day one: 'contradicts', 'extends', 'cites critically', 'replicates'. Three months later those filters showed me exactly where the disagreements in my field were.
3 weeks ago
The database view for my sources does things Zotero never could. Sort by 'challenged by' count and instantly see which findings are most contested. That's the research.
5 weeks ago
Map the relationships in your research.
Join waitlistFor Researchers
Map what the literature says to each other, not just to you.
The situation
You are reviewing a field. Your notes are in Zotero. Your conceptual map is a photo of a whiteboard you drew two weeks ago. The relationships between sources — which challenge each other, which share the same foundational assumptions — exist only in your reading notes and in your memory.
When you write, you reconstruct those relationships manually every time. The synthesis is the hardest part of research and the least supported by any tool.
What changes
In Scopic, every source is an element and every relationship between sources is a named connection. The 'challenges' connection between two papers is a record you can open, annotate, and filter by. Build the map as you read and the literature review writes itself from the structure you've already built.
The database view holds every source as a row with all the properties you've defined. Filter to a subset, sort by any property, see the connections for any single source on its page. Map, database, and pages — the same project.
Maps you'd build
- Literature structure map
Sources connected by 'challenges', 'extends', 'replicates', 'contradicts' relations. Filter by type to see contested claims, methodological lineages, or foundational works. Full citation details and notes as properties on each element.
- Stakeholder map
Actors, institutions, and interests connected by named relationships: 'funds', 'opposes', 'advises', 'influences'. Fieldwork notes attached to relevant elements. Filter by relationship type to prepare for interviews.
- Theoretical framework map
Concepts and their relationships: 'builds on', 'critiques', 'operationalises'. Connect theories to the empirical papers that apply them. See where your argument sits in the broader conceptual landscape.
Map the relationships in your research.
Join the waitlist to get early access or talk through your use case.
Join waitlist- Map the literature
Named connections between sources — challenges, extends, contradicts. Filter the map to see contested findings or methodological lineages.
- Database and map together
Every source is a row you can sort and filter and an element you can place on a map. One project, not two tools.
- Stakeholder and fieldwork
Actors, institutions, fieldwork notes — all in the same project as your literature. Connect the theoretical to the empirical.