academic writing
Oct 2, 2025
Written by: Alessandra Giugliano
AI for academic writing is evolving rapidly, offering tools that support critical thinking by providing feedback on structure, evidence, and clarity. A recent study at Carnegie Mellon University shows that, with proper instruction, generative AI can reduce writing time by 65% and improve the quality of graduate-level writing. This article compares two AI writing feedback tools—thesify vs Enago Read—evaluating their revision features, chat options, pricing, and performance on a published research article and an MSc student paper. By understanding how each tool handles literature summarization, research feedback, and organization, you can decide which solution best supports your academic writing.
Why AI Writing Feedback Tools Matter for Academic Writing
AI writing feedback tools are designed to strengthen your critical thinking by analyzing your work like an experienced reviewer. Unlike generic grammar checkers, these tools evaluate clarity, logical flow, and evidence. They identify gaps and suggest improvements while preserving your voice. For more, see our guide on Choosing the Right AI Tool for Academic Writing: thesify vs. ChatGPT.
Ethical AI tools help with feedback, sources and structure without writing the paper. This makes them valuable for:
Graduate students and researchers who need structured feedback on proposals, theses or journal submissions. Targeted AI support has been shown to improve writing quality and efficiency.
Students learning academic writing, such as undergraduates drafting essays or literature reviews. Tools like thesify can pinpoint weaknesses and recommend improvements.
Scholars exploring new fields who need to digest papers quickly and identify research gaps without reading every page.
By choosing an AI feedback tool, you gain a coach that highlights where your argument needs strengthening, offers context and links to relevant literature, and frees up time for deeper thinking.
Feature Comparison: Digests, Research Feedback, and AI Tools in thesify vs Enago Read
Both thesify and Enago Read aim to streamline academic writing, but they adopt different approaches.
thesify’s Features
thesify is built around comprehensive feedback and research guidance.
Key capabilities include:
Paper Digest – When you upload a document (up to 100,000 words), thesify produces a digest summarizing the paper’s purpose, methodology, main claims, conclusion and keywords. This digest provides an at-a-glance understanding of the work.
thesify’s Paper Digest feature breaks down academic papers into sections such as summary, keywords, main claims, conclusion, and methods.
Research opportunities – Based on the paper’s research question, thesify suggests future directions and prompts ideas for exploring unexplored angles. It also links to related publications, journals, conferences and grants, helping you situate your work in the academic landscape.
thesify highlights potential research opportunities, from ethical frameworks for future generations to sustainability in doomsday scenarios.
Feedback summary and section-by-section analysis – You receive a summary of what works well and what needs improvement, along with detailed feedback on the title, abstract, introduction and other sections. Suggestions cover purpose, thesis statement alignment, and use of evidence.
thesify’s feedback summary offers a balanced view of what works well, what needs improvement, and an overall assessment of the paper.
Recommendations and suggested topics – thesify identifies gaps in literature reviews, advises on citation placement and recommends improvements such as clarifying methodology or strengthening analysis.
thesify’s downloadable feedback report generates suggested topics with detailed responses, helping students expand their analysis and address gaps in their work.
Collections and organization – The tool lets you organize documents into collections, track versions and collaborate with peers.
With Collections, thesify helps writers organize related academic resources, journals, and articles for future reference.
Chat with Theo – An interactive academic chat where you can ask follow-up questions about the feedback or explore connections to other research. For example, if you’re writing about trust in healthcare settings, you can ask Theo how a mental health intervention study might inform your topic and receive targeted suggestions.
Chat with Theo allows users to ask follow-up questions and receive structured guidance for revising academic work.
Pricing – thesify offers a 7‑day free trial and a subscription at €2.49/month that includes unlimited feedback, Paper Digests, research searches and collaborative features
Enago Read’s Features
Enago Read focuses on summarizing research papers and organizing literature. Its main features are:
Summarizer and Key Insights – Enago Read generates section-wise summaries of papers, highlighting research goals, methodology, outcomes and discussions. The Key Insights feature distills the paper’s unique contribution. However, it performs best on published articles and we found in testing may not always capture all sections.
Enago Read provides a section-wise summary of published articles, highlighting introductions, methods, results, and conclusions.
Critique template – Provides a blank structure for you to record your own analysis and critique.
The critique template in Enago Read helps users analyze arguments and methodology, supported by Copilot’s interactive guidance.
Copilot chat – A conversational assistant that answers questions about a paper’s content. It can clarify methods or connect the paper to broader topics but does not draw directly from a feedback report.
Copilot generates summaries of complex academic texts, highlighting arguments, key insights, and thematic contributions.
Literature organization – Enago Read allows attachments, tagging and project organization to keep references aligned with specific sections.
Pricing – The platform offers a free Basic plan (10 summaries and 10 key insights per month) and two paid plans: Premium at $3/month (50 summaries and 30 key insights) and Premium with Copilot at $4/month, which offers unlimited literature search. A limited-time promotion discounts the annual Copilot plan to $40.
In summary, thesify prioritizes deep feedback, research opportunities and interactive guidance, making it ideal for writers seeking comprehensive support. Enago Read excels at quickly summarizing published articles and organizing literature but offers limited automated feedback for original drafts.
Published Article Test: Evaluating thesify and Enago Read
To understand how each tool performs in practice, we tested them on the peer‑reviewed article Interventions for Depression Symptoms Among Adolescent Survivors of War and Displacement in Northern Uganda (Bolton et al., 2007). This randomized controlled trial compared group interpersonal psychotherapy and creative play for war‑affected adolescents.
thesify Digests and Research Feedback for Published Articles
When we uploaded the published study to thesify, the platform generated a detailed Paper Digest. The digest summarized the study’s aim—reducing depression symptoms among war-affected adolescents—while outlining the methodology (group interpersonal psychotherapy versus creative play), key findings (notable improvements for girls but not for boys), and overall conclusion. It also listed targeted keywords such as interpersonal psychotherapy, creative play, depression, and war-affected adolescents, making it easy to recall the paper’s focus and core contributions.
thesify generates a structured research Paper Digest, outlining aims, methodology, keywords, and key findings for complex studies
thesify’s Suggested Research Opportunities
Beyond summarization, thesify suggested research opportunities that extended the scope of the article. These included:
Investigating the long-term impact of interpersonal psychotherapy on adolescent mental health,
Exploring gender differences in how interventions are accepted, and
Examining how trust in healthcare relationships shapes treatment outcomes.
The Opportunities tab in thesify suggests future research directions and links to related resources, helping academics extend their work.
thesify’s Related Resources Feature
thesify also provided direct links to related publications, relevant journals, conferences, and grants, making it an effective AI writing feedback tool for deepening literature reviews.
thesify connects users with related resources, including publications, journals, conferences, and grants relevant to their paper.
thesify’s Feedback Feature
thesify’s feedback summary highlighted strengths such as the clarity of the research question and robust methodology. At the same time, it noted gaps, including the need for a more comprehensive review of existing mental health interventions in conflict settings.
thesify provides targeted recommendations, such as clarifying thesis significance, analyzing gender differences, and expanding literature review coverage.
The section-by-section analysis recommended practical revisions:
Refining the title to emphasize adolescent survivors,
Expanding the abstract to clarify sample size and demographics, and
Ensuring proper citations of local assessment instruments.
thesify recommends improving citation of local assessment instruments and expanding the discussion of creative play outcomes to strengthen the paper’s analysis.
Using Chat with Theo on Published Academic Articles
Finally, using Chat with Theo, we explored how the study might connect to a paper on trust in healthcare settings. Theo identified meaningful links—such as the importance of therapeutic trust, cultural context, and gender-based differences—that encouraged interdisciplinary thinking.
Using Chat with Theo, thesify provided tailored feedback linking adolescent psychotherapy research to broader questions about trust in healthcare.
Overall, thesify’s combination of Paper Digest, targeted research suggestions, structured feedback, and interactive support demonstrates the value of AI for academic writing when evaluating complex, peer-reviewed studies.
Enago Read Review: Summaries and Key Insights for Published Articles
To test Enago Read, we uploaded the same article, Interventions for Depression Symptoms Among Adolescent Survivors of War and Displacement in Northern Uganda (Bolton et al., 2007), used in the above thesify test.
Enago Read displays the full article alongside Copilot, which allows users to ask for summaries, goals, and outcomes.
Section-wise Summary
After upload, the tool generated a section-wise summary, however during our testing with this article it only produced a summary of the methods section.
The section-wise summary in Enago Read concentrates heavily on the methods section, outlining interventions and outcomes.
It briefly described the randomized controlled trial and the interventions, but offered less detail for other sections of the study.
Key Insights
The platform also produced Key Insights, which outlined the research goals (reducing depression symptoms), the methodology (comparing group therapies), and the main outcomes.
Enago Read organizes a study’s research goal, approach, outcomes, and author speculations into a structured outline.
Enago Read speculated about possible directions for future research, such as:
Developing interventions specifically tailored to boys,
Exploring new therapeutic methods to improve functioning among war-affected adolescents.
Enago Read summarizes author speculations and highlights possible research opportunities, including interventions tailored to adolescent boys.
Enago Read includes the same generic critique template for each piece of literature you upload, but in our test this space was left blank and required manual input.
The critique template in Enago Read provides a framework of guiding questions for evaluating academic arguments and methods.
Enago Read Literature Management
Enago Read allows you to organize references by attaching notes and tagging specific sections of the article. However, the platform does not provide automated research opportunities, related resources, or detailed digests.
Enago Read Copilot Chat
The Copilot chat feature was more interactive: when asked about trust in healthcare, it explained how interpersonal psychotherapy fosters trust, emphasized cultural adaptation, and noted that research in low-resource settings depends heavily on building trust with local communities. While useful, this feedback was not structured into a report, limiting its practical value compared with other AI writing feedback tools.
Copilot offers contextual insights, linking therapeutic trust in interpersonal psychotherapy to broader healthcare research.
Overall, Enago Read offers quick summaries, basic organization, and Copilot chat for answering user queries. For researchers who only need high-level insights, this may be sufficient. But for deeper analysis and structured feedback, the comparison of thesify vs Enago Read shows that thesify’s Paper Digest, feedback, and research opportunities provide more comprehensive support in AI for academic writing.
Comparing Chat Features: Chat with Theo vs Enago Read Copilot
When testing the chat features of thesify (Chat with theo) vs Enago Read (Co-pilot) on the same article, Interventions for Depression Symptoms Among Adolescent Survivors of War and Displacement in Northern Uganda (Bolton et al., 2007), we observed significant differences in depth, structure, and practical value. Both tools were asked how the study might relate to a paper on trust in healthcare settings.
Chat with Theo (thesify)
Provided a structured, multi-point response, breaking the answer into five themes:
Trust in therapeutic relationships
Cultural context and trust
Intervention acceptance and trust
Barriers to trust in displaced populations
Outcomes and trust among boys vs girls
Each theme was directly tied to the article’s findings, with actionable suggestions for how a researcher might expand on these ideas.
The reply demonstrated how AI for academic writing can support interdisciplinary thinking, linking psychotherapy outcomes to broader healthcare debates.
Copilot Chat (Enago Read)
Generated a narrative summary that described the interventions and highlighted the role of trust in interpersonal psychotherapy.
Noted the contrast between group therapy (IPT-G, effective for girls) and creative play (CP, less effective), and framed trust as central to the outcomes.
Discussed challenges of conducting research in low-resource contexts and emphasized cultural adaptation.
While informative, the answer was less structured than Theo’s and did not provide a checklist of themes or follow-up research directions.
Takeaway:
Both AI writing feedback tools recognized trust as a central concept, but thesify’s Chat with Theo offered a more analytical and structured response, with clear categories that can be directly integrated into a research paper. Enago Read’s Copilot provided useful context and narrative framing, but it lacked the actionable, point-by-point guidance that thesify delivered. Full transcripts of both chats are available in the section below.
Full Transcripts
We’ve included the full transcripts from both tools to ensure transparency and allow you to evaluate the differences between thesify’s Chat with Theo and Enago Read’s Copilot. Both were asked the same question:
Prompt: “I am curious how this article may relate to a paper I am writing on trust in varying healthcare settings, do you see any potential connections to explore here?”
Transcript from Chat with Theo (thesify)
Theo’s Response:
It's great that you're exploring connections between the article on mental health interventions and your paper on trust in varying healthcare settings. Here are some potential connections you could consider:
1. Trust in Therapeutic Relationships: The effectiveness of IPT-G and CP may depend significantly on the trust between the facilitators and the participants. In your paper, you could explore how trust impacts the willingness of adolescents, particularly those affected by trauma, to engage in therapeutic interventions. This could include discussing how trust is built in healthcare settings and how it differs among male and female adolescents, given the different outcomes observed in your study.
2. Cultural Context and Trust: The article highlights the implementation of IPT-G and CP in a specific cultural context (internally displaced persons in Uganda). You could examine how trust in healthcare providers varies across different cultural settings and the implications for mental health interventions. Understanding the local context and cultural perceptions of mental health care can influence trust levels and, consequently, the effectiveness of interventions.
3. Intervention Acceptance and Trust: The varying effectiveness of IPT-G and CP for boys and girls raises questions about acceptance of these interventions. In your paper, you could investigate how trust in healthcare systems affects the acceptance of specific treatments or interventions and how this varies by gender, particularly in populations with different psychosocial needs.
4. Barriers to Trust: Consider discussing potential barriers to trust in healthcare settings that may arise from trauma and displacement, as noted in the article. You could analyze how these barriers impact mental health treatment outcomes and what strategies might be employed to foster trust among war-affected youth in healthcare contexts.
5. Outcomes and Trust: Since the study found limited improvement among boys, you might explore how trust in healthcare providers could influence the perceived effectiveness of interventions. If boys do not trust the process or the facilitators, they may be less likely to engage fully, affecting the outcomes. This could lead to a discussion on the importance of tailoring interventions to build trust among different demographic groups.
By exploring these connections, you can enrich your paper on trust in healthcare settings while demonstrating the relevance of the findings from the mental health intervention study. It could also provide a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics between trust and treatment efficacy in vulnerable populations. Good luck with your writing!
Transcript from Copilot (Enago Read)
Copilot’s Response:
The article you're referring to is a randomized controlled trial that investigates the effectiveness of two interventions, group interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT-G) and creative play (CP), in reducing symptoms of depression, anxiety, and conduct problems among adolescent survivors of war and displacement in northern Uganda. One potential connection to explore in your paper on trust in varying healthcare settings is the concept of trust in the context of mental health interventions. The article highlights the importance of trust in the therapeutic relationship, as the IPT-G intervention, which involves a strong therapeutic relationship and a focus on interpersonal relationships, was found to be effective in reducing symptoms of depression among adolescent girls. In contrast, the CP intervention, which focuses on group activities and does not involve a strong therapeutic relationship, was not found to be effective in reducing symptoms of depression. This suggests that the type of intervention and the level of trust involved may play a crucial role in the effectiveness of mental health interventions in different cultural and socio-economic contexts. You may also want to explore the concept of trust in the context of healthcare settings, particularly in low-resource settings like northern Uganda. The article highlights the challenges of conducting research in such settings, including the need to adapt interventions to local contexts and the importance of building trust with local communities and healthcare providers. Furthermore, the article's findings on the effectiveness of IPT-G in reducing symptoms of depression among adolescent girls may have implications for the development of trust-based interventions in healthcare settings. The study's use of a locally developed and culturally sensitive intervention, which was adapted to the specific needs and context of the local community, may be an important factor in building trust and improving health outcomes. Overall, the article provides a rich source of information on the importance of trust in mental health interventions and healthcare settings, and may be a useful resource for your paper on trust in varying healthcare settings.
MSc Student Paper Test: Assessing Research Feedback in AI Writing Tools
Our second test involved an MSc student paper examining how illness narratives validate experiences of contested suffering. The paper responded to Dumit’s (2006) assertion that one must “suffer in code” for suffering to be recognized and explored how personal narratives inform medical anthropology and patient care.
thesify Research Feedback and Opportunities for Student Papers
When testing AI for academic writing on an MSc-level essay, we uploaded the essay as a “scientific paper”, which allowed thesify to deliver both a Paper Digest and detailed feedback. thesify’s features helped break down complex arguments, identify gaps, and suggest research directions.
thesify lets users specify whether they are the author and select document type, such as scientific paper, thesis, or essay.
thesify’s Paper Digest
thesify generates a digest summarizing a student paper on illness narratives, including keywords, main claims, and methods.
After uploading the student-written essay assignment as a “scientific paper”, thesify generated a Paper Digest for the essay that included:
A concise summary of the paper’s main claims, methodology, and conclusions
thesify highlights key claims from a student essay, emphasizing the importance of illness narratives, contested suffering, and the structural challenges patients face.
Keywords such as contested conditions, illness narratives, and therapeutic approaches
thesify automatically extracts relevant keywords from the student essay, surfacing research terms such as illness narratives, contested suffering, qualitative research, and patient-centered care.
Although this feature is intended to be used on scientific articles, we found it useful even for a student-written essay in terms of validating their ability to communicate key aspects of their essay.
To find out more about how students and academic authors use thesify’s Paper Digest feature to evaluate their own work, check out our guide on how to use Paper Digest as a communication and clarity check.
thesify’s Research Opportunities
thesify offered a variety of research opportunities, including:
Exploring the therapeutic benefits of illness narratives for contested illnesses
Developing new approaches based on patient stories
Linking findings to fields like medical anthropology and narrative medicine
thesify suggests research opportunities, including digital media’s role in shaping and disseminating illness narratives.
An especially useful aspect of this feature was that for each suggested research opportunity, thesify suggested a related reading for further context.
thesify’s Related Resources
thesify also links to related publications, journals, and conferences, expanding your awareness of relevant scholarship.
thesify recommends relevant journals for publishing their paper on illness narratives and contested suffering.
thesify’s Feedback and Section-by-Section Guidance
thesify offered a feedback summary, available as a downloadable feedback report, that praised:
Alignment between the thesis statement and the research question
Effective use of evidence from Dumit (2006) and other scholars
Clear articulation of the barriers faced by patients
thesify feedback summary highlighting strengths, areas for improvement, and overall assessment of an illness narratives essay.
At the same time, it recommended improvements such as:
Deepening analysis of how narratives validate suffering
Defining key concepts like contested suffering more precisely
Strengthening connections between evidence and Dumit’s statement
thesify evaluates the paper’s evidence use, noting weak analysis patterns and providing improvement tips.
Clarifying methodology and improving citations
thesify provides targeted recommendations to clarify concepts, strengthen methodology, and improve evidence use in a student paper.
The feedback also provided an overview of suggested topics, clarifying which questions the student had adequately answered and which were left to still explore:
thesify’s additional feedback offers structured responses to assignment prompts and suggested discussion topics.
The section-by-section feedback flagged specific issues:
Title & Abstract: Suggested making the title more descriptive and expanding the abstract with findings
Introduction & Transitions: Recommended clearer transitions to strengthen flow
Analysis: Called for revising arguments, clarifying key concepts, and ensuring citation accuracy
Chat with Theo: Interactive Student Support
Using Chat with Theo, the student asked for guidance on how well the essay addressed the core question. Theo provided:
A structured evaluation of argument strength
Step-by-step next actions for revision
Encouragement to expand exploration of narrative validation
thesify provides structured chat feedback, breaking down thesis alignment, evidence integration, and depth of analysis for a paper on illness narratives.
Full Chat with Theo Transcript
User: How effectively does the paper answer the question, "'(O)ne must suffer in code in order to be suffering in fact, or one does not suffer at all'(Dumit 2006: 580). How does this statement of Dumit and the cases he discusses relate to the call to study the experiences of people through illness narratives?" How can the paper improve its answer to the question?
Theo:
Thank you for your detailed question regarding the effectiveness of the paper in addressing Dumit's statement on suffering and illness narratives. Let's break this down based on the rubric information and the context you've provided.
Effectiveness of the Paper in Answering the Question
1. Thesis Alignment: The thesis states that the relationship between illness narrative research and contested suffering reinforces their validity through four advantageous impacts. This aligns well with the question, as both aim to explore the significance of personal narratives in understanding suffering.
2. Integration of Evidence: The paper uses relevant evidence from Dumit and other scholars to support its claims. The references to barriers faced by patients, the limitations of biomedical approaches, and the therapeutic benefits of narrative expression are well articulated and provide a strong foundation for the argument.
3. Depth of Analysis: While the paper discusses the relationship between illness narratives and contested suffering, some analysis feels surface-level. For instance, when stating that illness narratives validate patient experiences, it could benefit from deeper exploration of how this validation occurs and its implications for both patients and healthcare systems.
4. Addressing the Complexity of Suffering: The paper does a commendable job emphasizing that suffering is multi-layered and subjective. However, it could more explicitly connect this complexity back to Dumit's assertion about "suffering in code," elaborating on how illness narratives serve to give voice to experiences that might otherwise remain unrecognized.
Areas for Improvement
1. Strengthening the Analysis: To improve the answer, the paper should provide a more in-depth examination of how illness narrative research specifically validates patient experiences. Instead of restating claims, it should analyze the implications of these findings more thoroughly. For example, when discussing barriers, the paper could explore how these barriers affect the patient's sense of identity and agency.
2. Clarity and Methodological Detail: Some sections could benefit from clearer explanations of key terms and concepts, such as "contested suffering" and "illness narrative research." Providing explicit details about the methodology and the process of how narratives are collected and analyzed would enhance the credibility and clarity of the argument.
3. Proper Referencing: Ensure that all evidence is properly referenced to maintain academic integrity. Instances where evidence is presented without clear citations should be addressed to avoid confusion and strengthen the overall argument.
4. Logical Flow: The transitions between discussing the advantages of illness narrative research and its potential drawbacks need to be strengthened. Ensuring that the argument flows logically from one point to the next will help maintain coherence.
Next Steps
•Revise the Analysis: Focus on deepening the analysis in sections where claims are made, ensuring that each point is supported by evidence and thoughtful interpretation.
•Clarify Key Concepts: Review the paper for areas where definitions and explanations can be made clearer to enhance understanding.
•Ensure Proper Citations: Go through the paper to verify that all evidence is accurately cited, and any missing references are added.
•Enhance Logical Connections: Revise the structure to ensure that each section logically leads to the next, reinforcing the overall argument cohesively.
By following these recommendations, the paper can improve its effectiveness in answering the question about Dumit's statement and enhance its overall quality. Keep up the great work in developing your insight on such a complex topic!
Overall, thesify functioned as a comprehensive AI writing feedback tool, offering actionable suggestions, linked resources, and interactive support. This makes it particularly effective for writing complex academic papers.
Enago Read: Organization and Copilot Chat for Student Papers
In contrast, Enago Read was less effective at generating detailed student paper feedback. Since the input was not a published article, the tool was unable to create a section-wise summary or key insights.
Enago Read was unable to generate automated key insights for an uploaded student-written academic paper
Enago Read Document Organization Tools
The platform did provide organizational features, allowing users to:
Place the essay in a project folder
Attach notes to the document
Tag references for later use
Find related resources
Enago Read’s Explore tab lists related academic articles on illness narratives, contested suffering, and patient experiences.
While useful for managing reading lists, these features did not directly support AI feedback on student writing.
Enago Read Copilot Chat: General Guidance
The most helpful feature was Copilot chat. When asked to connect Dumit’s statement to the essay analysis, Copilot suggested:
Explicitly linking Dumit’s assertion to examples of illness narratives
Emphasizing how narratives address gaps left by biomedical models
Highlighting the role of personal experiences in validating suffering
Enago Read’s Explore tab lists related academic articles on illness narratives, contested suffering, and patient experiences.
This advice was contextually relevant but lacked the structured, actionable detail provided by thesify.
Full Enago Read Transcript
User: How effectively does the paper answer the question, "'(O)ne must suffer in code in order to be suffering in fact, or one does not suffer at all'(Dumit 2006: 580). How does this statement of Dumit and the cases he discusses relate to the call to study the experiences of people through illness narratives?" How can the paper improve its answer to the question?01:43 pm
Copilot: The paper effectively explores the relationship between illness narrative research and contested suffering, and how they relate to the statement by Dumit (2006) that "one must suffer in code in order to be suffering in fact, or one does not suffer at all." The author highlights how illness narrative research can validate the experiences of individuals with contested illnesses, and how this research can shed light on the complexities of suffering that are not captured by biomedical approaches. The paper provides several examples of how illness narrative research can be beneficial, including: 1. Illuminating the various barriers and obstacles faced by individuals with contested illnesses, such as problems with insurance, stigma, and self-accusation. 2. Providing a more holistic understanding of the embodied experience of illness, which can lead to more effective and sensitive patient-centered care. 3. Offering a therapeutic benefit to individuals with contested illnesses, as expressing their experiences through narratives can help them process their pain and emotions. 4. Validating the importance of illness narrative research and the legitimacy of contested illness. However, the paper could improve its answer to the question by more explicitly addressing the relationship between Dumit's statement and the call to study the experiences of people through illness narratives. The author mentions Dumit's statement at the beginning of the paper, but does not fully explore how it relates to the rest of the argument. To improve the answer, the author could: 1. Provide more explicit connections between Dumit's statement and the examples of illness narrative research provided in the paper. 2. Discuss how the statement by Dumit highlights the limitations of biomedical approaches to understanding suffering and illness, and how illness narrative research can fill this gap. 3. Emphasize how the statement by Dumit underscores the importance of considering the subjective and personal experiences of individuals with contested illnesses, and how illness narrative research can provide a more nuanced understanding of these experiences. By making these connections more explicit, the author can strengthen the argument and provide a more comprehensive answer to the question.
Limitations of Enago Read for Student Writing
Because Enago Read does not generate:
A digest of student papers
Section-by-section feedback
Research opportunities or linked resources
…you must conduct most of the analysis and revision yourself.
Key Takeaway: thesify vs Enago Read for Student Papers
thesify provides a Paper Digest, structured feedback, research opportunities, and Chat with Theo for interactive improvement.
Enago Read offers organization and Copilot chat, but lacks automated digest and detailed academic feedback.
For AI for academic writing, thesify’s feedback features are better suited for tackling complex assignments, while Enago Read remains more of a literature organization tool.
Comparing Subscription Plans: thesify Pricing vs Enago Read Pricing
Pricing is often the deciding factor when selecting an AI writing feedback tool. Here’s how thesify vs Enago Read compare.
thesify Pricing and Value
Free trial: 7 days of full access
Subscription: €2.49/month
Features included: unlimited real-time feedback, Paper Digests, research opportunities, related resource searches (journals, conferences, grants), and Chat with Theo
Document uploads: up to 100,000 words (10 MB)
With unlimited usage and a low monthly fee, thesify’s subscription is well-suited to students and researchers who need ongoing feedback and support for multiple drafts or long projects.
Enago Read Pricing and Value
Basic plan (free): 10 summaries + 10 key insights per month
Premium ($3/month): 50 summaries + 30 insights
Premium with Copilot ($4/month): unlimited searches and Copilot chat
Promotion: annual Copilot plan for $40
Enago Read’s tiered plans offer flexibility for casual users seeking quick summaries. However, the monthly quotas on summaries and insights can limit heavy users or those needing detailed, repeated feedback.
Takeaway on Pricing
For users who want unlimited feedback and research support, thesify’s flat subscription provides stronger value. Enago Read may suit those who prioritize quick literature summaries, but its usage caps require more careful management.
FAQs About AI for Academic Writing Tools
What Is AI Writing Feedback and How Does It Support Academic Writing?
AI writing feedback involves tools that analyze your writing for clarity, coherence and evidence. They provide suggestions on structure, argumentation and citations, helping you refine your work while maintaining your voice.
Ethical AI tools do not generate content but support your research by offering summaries and sources. This improves writing efficiency and quality, as evidenced by the 65% reduction in writing time and grade improvement noted in the Carnegie Mellon study.
How Does AI Research Feedback Improve Academic Writing?
Research feedback identifies gaps in your argument, suggests future directions and connects your work to existing literature. Tools like thesify provide research opportunities and links to related publications and conferences, helping you situate your work within a broader context. This feedback encourages deeper analysis and ensures your paper addresses your research question effectively.
Which AI Writing Tool Subscription Fits Your Needs?
Choosing a subscription depends on how often you write and the level of feedback you require. If you need detailed digests, comprehensive feedback and unlimited research suggestions, thesify’s €2.49/month plan offers strong value.
If you primarily need quick summaries and occasional insights, Enago Read’s free or $3/month plans may suffice.
Consider how many papers you work on each month and whether you need interactive chat support, as this affects your choice.
Is My Data Safe with AI Writing Tools?
Both platforms maintain privacy policies and state that they handle user data securely. Always review the latest privacy policies and avoid uploading sensitive data. For research papers or essays, these tools provide a secure environment for feedback and revision.
Conclusion: Choosing Your AI Writing Feedback Tool
Generative AI can be a powerful ally when used responsibly. The Carnegie Mellon study demonstrates that with proper instruction, AI tools can significantly improve writing efficiency and quality. However, not all tools offer the same level of support.
In our comparison, thesify provides comprehensive Paper Digests, detailed feedback, research opportunities and an interactive chat (Chat with Theo), making it especially suitable for graduate students and researchers. Enago Read excels at summarizing published articles and organizing literature but offers limited automated feedback for draft papers.
Price also plays a role: thesify’s single subscription offers unlimited feedback and research guidance at €2.49 per month, while Enago Read’s tiered plans may be appealing for casual users who need only a few summaries. Consider your workflow, frequency of writing and need for deep analysis when selecting a tool.
Start With Smarter Feedback Today
thesify goes beyond summaries with detailed feedback, research opportunities, and tailored resources to strengthen your work at every stage. Find out more about how thesify supports academic writing or sign up today to start your free trial.
Related Posts
Paperpal vs thesify: AI Writing Reviewers Compared: If you are choosing an AI writing reviewer, you care about clarity, speed, and whether the feedback leads to a stronger draft. To give you a fair comparison, we tested Paperpal and thesify on the same sociology abstract and evaluated their reviewer output and chat experience. Both tools do more than reviewing, but here we focus only on the reviewer and chat so you can decide what will improve your next abstract.
Jenni AI vs. Google Gemini: Comparing AI Tools for Academic Writing and Avoiding Cheating: AI tools like Jenni AI and Google Gemini offer students valuable assistance, but they come with limitations that may not align with academic integrity or the demands of higher education. Whatever tool you choose, understanding how to use AI responsibly and transparently remains essential to aligning with university expectations and achieving academic success.
Choosing the Right AI Tool for Academic Writing: thesify vs. ChatGPT: While ChatGPT offers convenience, thesify’s feedback emphasizes critical thinking, ethical use, and targeted growth, setting students up for long-term success. If your goal is not just to complete an assignment but to truly excel and learn, thesify provides the structured, purposeful support that students and researchers need in today’s AI-driven world. Find out the key differences between these two AI tools.