For researchers, PhD students, and anyone surveying a field
A literature review that argues, not lists.
The hard part isn’t finding papers — it’s turning fifty of them into one argument that ends in a gap. Grongy organises by theme, not by paper, from sources you can open and check.
No card required · every citation traceable to a real source
By theme, never paper-by-paper
The most common failure is “Smith (2020) found… Jones (2021) found…”. Grongy writes topic sentences that claim something about the literature as a whole, then groups agreement and disagreement underneath.
Finds the free full text
Searches OpenAlex, Crossref, and DOAJ together, then asks Unpaywall whether a paywalled paper has a legal free copy. Attach the PDF and it cites the exact page.
Ends on the gap
Every thematic section closes by naming what the studies establish, what they leave unexamined, and why that omission matters — never a vague “more research is needed”.
The structure you get
What Grongy proposes when you pick “Literature review” — no Methodology or Results, because a review has neither.
- 1
Introduction
The question the review answers and why the field needs it now.
- 2
Background
The minimum grounding a reader needs before the themes.
- 3
Themes
Two to four thematic sections that synthesise the literature — one per idea, not one per paper.
- 4
Discussion
What the body of work adds up to, and where it contradicts itself.
- 5
Conclusion
The gap, stated precisely enough to build on.
You stay the author
Grongy drafts from sources you can open and check — it never invents a citation, and it never pretends the work is its own. If you are submitting to a journal, most publishers now ask you to disclose AI assistance; Grongy writes that disclosure for you from what you actually used.