Skip to content

The AI research growth platform

Your paper is cleared for orbit.

Your research should not stop at publication. One paper in, a full communication kit out — plus the funders who already pay for work like yours.

Drop your own paper on the orbit to try it, or . About a minute. Nothing is stored.

Live from the platform
grants indexed
9,641,446
funders searchable
174,053
in grant money tracked
$984B
formats from one paper
11

Grant figures from IRS Form 990-PF filings, 2019–2023.

Months of work. A moment of attention. Then silence.

13.0%
of NIH research project grants were funded in 2025NIH
+53%
more papers published a year than a decade agoSTM
17 years
from evidence to everyday practiceJ R Soc Med

Publish the research. Amplify its reach. Fund what comes next.

  1. Step 1

    Upload a publication

    We read the PDF and build a structured profile.

  2. Step 2

    Correct what it got wrong

    You fix it once. Everything downstream follows.

  3. Step 3

    Generate content

    One paper, eleven audience-ready formats.

  4. Step 4

    Discover funding

    Real opportunities, each with a reason it fits.

  5. Step 5

    Stay ahead of deadlines

    Alerts when matches appear or deadlines close.

Research visibility

One publication becomes a full communication kit.

Your publication

One paper, once

LinkedIn postposted, with its chart attached

AR

Dr. A. Rivera

Associate Professor, Public Health

2h · 🌐

Two years. 1,200 Chicago teenagers. One question: does living near a grocery store show up in a kid’s blood pressure?

It does — and the gap was bigger than we expected.

What this study can’t tell you: whether access caused the difference. It’s observational. A store opening tomorrow is not a prescription.

#PublicHealth #HealthEquity #FoodAccess

Mean systolic blood pressure

By neighborhood grocery-store density

Fewest stores118.4
Middle115.9
Most stores114.3

n = 1,200 · adjusted for BMI, physical activity and household income · observational, not causal

👍 💡 ❤️ 21437 comments · 62 reposts

Worked examples on an illustrative study — the numbers are not published findings. Your versions are built from your own paper and its figures.

You correct the paper once, not every summary

PaperOrbit reads your paper into one structured profile. You fix that once, and every post, summary, poster and page is built from it. Try it: change any value in the profile.

The profile · edit anything

LinkedIn post

Two years. 1,200 Chicago teenagers. One question: does living near a grocery store show up in a kid’s blood pressure?

It does. Teens with the fewest stores nearby averaged 4.1 mmHg higher.

Plain-language summary

We followed 1,200 teenagers in Chicago for two years. Those with the fewest grocery stores near home had blood pressure about 4.1 mmHg higher than those with the most. The study cannot say access caused the difference.

Poster headline

4.1mmHg

higher systolic pressure where stores are fewest. 1,200 adolescents · two years · Chicago

Public page

In plain language

One city’s teenagers, two years, one gap of 4.1 mmHg

1,200 participants · Chicago · observational

A worked illustrative study, not published findings.

Built to be trusted by people whose careers depend on being right: found, inferred and uncertain stay distinct, nothing is published on your behalf, and your papers stay private and never train models. Read the full statement.

A living research agenda

More useful with every paper you add.

Your themes, methods and honest gaps become one picture — and it tells you what to pursue next.

Funding discovery

The only tool that searches what foundations actually funded.

Federal calls are the easy half. The hard half is private money — foundations post nothing, so nobody can search them. We read their IRS filings instead.

9.6M
grants read from IRS filings, with recipient, amount and purpose
174,053
private foundations and grantmaking charities, searchable by what they actually funded
$984B
in grant money, indexed and searchable

Built from IRS Form 990-PF filings, 2019–2023. Retrospective by nature: it shows who a funder has already paid, never an open call with a deadline.

A federal match

“This fits your work on food access and cardiovascular risk. You may benefit from adding an implementation scientist.”

A foundation match

“Their filings show 14 grants totalling $412,000, most recently in 2023. The largest was $40,000 to a university athletic training program.”

Give your research a life beyond publication.