Short answer
First decide what you need to do: find papers, choose which papers qualify, review the evidence, or write. CiteFlow starts after you have collected the PDFs. It helps one person read, compare, search, and cite those local files.
When to use this method
A local project works well when one person needs to read, retrieve, compare and cite a defined set of PDFs without automatic cloud sync. Other workflows are a better fit for shared editing, formal screening, protocol reporting or database-wide discovery.
Before you start
Write one research question. Decide whether you are doing an informal review or a formal systematic review. Discovery finds papers. Screening chooses which papers qualify. Evidence review reads and compares the chosen papers. Writing turns checked evidence into your own work.
Choose one tool for each stage
Find the papers
Use academic databases and save the search words you used. You should end with a set of candidate papers.
Choose which papers qualify
Use a dedicated systematic review platform when formal duplicate removal, screening, and protocol records are required. You should have a clear included-paper list before evidence review.
Review the evidence
Use folders or a reader for a small set. Use a shared reference service for a team library. Use CiteFlow when one person needs local PDFs and page-linked notes. You should be able to reopen the page behind every important note.
Choose the citation style
Choose APA 7, MLA 9, Chicago 18 Author-Date, Chicago 18 Notes-Bibliography, or IEEE as required by your school or publisher. Treat every generated citation as a draft and compare it with the source details before submission.
Check whether a lookup uses the internet
Reading, notes, exact search, and installed OCR run locally. DOI lookup, title lookup, and title translation use online services. Leave those lookup buttons unused when the query is sensitive.
Write from checked pages
Reopen the source page before using a note. You should see the words and context that support the claim. Check OCR, metadata, semantic matches, and citation drafts before writing.
Which research workflow fits?
Start with the primary need, then combine tools when the project spans several stages.
Scroll the table horizontally on a narrow screen.
| Primary need | Good starting point | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Read and annotate a small source set | Organized folders and a standard PDF reader | The simplest option when advanced retrieval and structured evidence notes are unnecessary |
| Maintain a shared library | A collaboration-oriented reference service | Designed for synchronized libraries and team access |
| Run formal screening and protocol reporting | A dedicated systematic review platform | Built for controlled review stages and formal records |
| Discover literature across databases | Academic databases and a documented search strategy | Supports source discovery and reproducible searching |
| Work locally with linked notes, OCR and retrieval | CiteFlow | Keeps the working evidence project on the PC |
Workflow mismatches
- Using a local organizer as the literature discovery method
- Treating semantic similarity as evidence quality
- Trusting OCR or citation output without checking the source
- Sending a sensitive DOI or title to an online lookup without reviewing it
Checkpoint: Research workflow checks
- Discovery and screening requirements are documented.
- Every note can be reopened at its source.
- Critical claims and citations are verified against the original.
CiteFlow
Read and compare local research PDFs, keep source-linked notes, search exactly or by meaning and prepare citation drafts for review.