On this page

What Liner does

Liner separates everyday search, academic research in Liner Scholar and drafting in Liner Write. Scholar documents topic-led literature overviews, citation tracing, reference recommendations and pre-submission feedback. This profile focuses on what those routes ask you to inspect: which papers were found, what their passages support, how credits apply and what happens to uploaded material. It does not report an accuracy or learning test.

Where it fits, and where it falls short

Useful strengths

Topic-led overviews and seed-paper tracing offer distinct starting points for finding candidate readings.
Citation Recommender lets the writer review reference options for individual statements and copy a styled bibliography.
Research comparison tables and documented feedback routes can help structure questions to check against the original papers.

Limits to consider

A source link or a large advertised collection does not establish passage support or complete literature coverage.
The pricing page and credit FAQ use different wording for Free credit renewal; verify the actual account balance and reset terms.
Training controls do not remove all processing, sharing or retention described in the applicable privacy policy.

A suggested Liner workflow

Liner: an illustrated workflow for checking sources and reviewing your work — An editorial illustration of the workflow.

1
Define a question and record the population, material or outcome that a relevant paper must address.
2
Choose topic-led discovery or a seed-paper trace, then record the actual query and candidate references.
3
Read the relevant passages, record limits and decide whether each proposed citation supports the exact claim.
4
Keep your own source notes and assistance record; inspect plan credits, sharing and data settings before uploading a draft.

Choose academic research rather than assuming every Liner surface is the same

Liner’s current product family separates Liner for everyday search, Liner Scholar for academic research and Liner Write for drafting. Scholar’s page describes paper discovery, study comparison, outlines and practice questions. Start from the task that is missing in your workflow rather than treating a subscription name as a guarantee that every surface has the same controls.

For coursework, the useful handoff may be from a question to candidate papers, from one paper to its citation network or from a draft statement to possible references. These are different decisions. A generated comparison table still needs the original methods and outcomes checked; a set of practice questions still needs correct answers and relevant course scope.

The Credits FAQ says Scholar and Write are optimized for desktop and distinguishes their credit use from the mobile app. Check the actual surface and balance you intend to use. A mobile credit display, a web Agent allowance and a model-selection list should not be assumed to describe one interchangeable entitlement.

Supporting documentation: [1] [6] [7]

Use a topic overview and a seed-paper trace for different searches

The Literature Review agent begins with a topic or keywords and presents an organized overview of papers, themes and proposed gaps. Research Tracer begins with a core paper and shows connected work, including cited and citing papers. A topic overview can help expose terminology to investigate; tracing can help inspect the conversation around a paper you already know.

Neither route proves that the required literature has been covered. Research Tracer’s FAQ explicitly acknowledges that a specific paper may be absent from its database. Record a known relevant paper that a search misses and inspect the terminology, scope and access issue before concluding that the work does not exist.

Treat a suggested gap as a question to investigate. A missing connection in a generated overview is not evidence that no researcher has studied the issue. Retain the actual search terms, dates, filters when available and reasons for including or excluding papers. The agent’s proposed structure can inform reading; the Literature Review page itself says the generated draft should not be submitted unchanged.

Supporting documentation: [2] [3]

A recommended reference needs a claim-to-passage check

Citation Recommender starts with draft text, offers reference options for statements and lets the writer choose a style and copy a bibliography. Its documented role differs from storing a collection of references already selected. Keep discovery of a candidate source separate from verifying that the paper supports the sentence you wrote.

The feature page lists relevance, recency, citation counts and journal influence among its recommendation factors. Those are selection signals, not a substitute for reading the relevant passage. A highly cited paper can discuss a different population, measure a different outcome or report a limitation that your draft omits. Revise the claim when the evidence supports less, rather than searching only for a reference that appears to endorse it.

Before using a copied bibliography, check the actual publication, author order, date, title and identifier against the paper or publisher record. Preserve a passage locator with your reading note. A formatted reference alone does not establish source identity, and a reference attached to a sentence does not demonstrate that its inference is justified.

Supporting documentation: [4]

Treat AI research feedback as a set of questions for revision

The Peer Review agent accepts a draft and describes feedback on originality, rigor, clarity, impact and limitations. Its page distinguishes this pre-submission feedback from official peer review. Use the comments to locate a question in the manuscript: which method detail is unclear, what claim needs qualification or where a limitation needs explanation?

For each proposed change, identify the affected passage and decide whether the criticism is supported. A request for a stronger causal conclusion may be inappropriate when the design supports association only. A request for another citation may point to a real evidence gap, but it still requires selecting and reading the source. Keep rejected changes and the reason when they affect the argument.

Scholar also advertises practice questions for learning. Try answering from your own reading before looking at a generated explanation, then compare the answer with the relevant source or course material. Product claims about benchmark accuracy, speed or agreement with human reviewers do not establish the quality of the particular feedback or practice item you receive; this profile does not adopt them as tested results.

Supporting documentation: [1] [5]

Try a bounded discovery-to-evidence exercise

This is a proposed exercise, not a Liner session we performed. Use the working question: what does published research report about retrieval practice in first-year university courses? First define what you mean by first-year study and whether you are investigating immediate performance, later retention or how studies measure those outcomes. Do not assume a benefit or a gap before reading.

Run a topic search only if your course permits that assistance. Record the actual query and the candidate papers, then select one accessible original paper that fits the question. If you use Research Tracer, record which paper became the seed and why. Do not label a recommendation as read until you inspect the material you need.

For one relevant claim, retain the study’s context, method, actual measure, passage locator and qualification. Compare that record with any generated summary or proposed citation. If a paper measures short-term recall, a sentence about all students’ long-term grades would need different evidence. Mark unavailable text or unclear methods as unresolved rather than filling the missing fields with a plausible answer.

Finish with your own annotation and one justified next action: keep a narrower claim, inspect a different paper or revise the question. The search-strategy log, annotated bibliography and source-verification worksheet provide separate records for those tasks. If you copy or export anything from Liner, inspect the actual handoff; this profile does not assert a tested file export or preserved metadata.

Separate training preferences from processing and shared access

Liner’s privacy policy distinguishes its general version from the EEA, UK and Switzerland version and a separate Korean policy. Both English policies describe transmitting content to third-party AI providers and a setting that excludes new data from Liner’s service-model training. The help article calls this Data Control under Account & Security and lists feedback and policy-enforcement exceptions. Product pages use broader shorthand about keeping data private; check the detailed policy and actual setting for your route.

The general policy expressly describes sending User Content and AI-generated responses to advertising partners for contextual ads. The regional policy has its own advertising and transfer wording. Do not treat a model-training opt-out, an ad-free plan or a non-public draft as a blanket statement that nothing is processed or shared. The Team plan separately advertises exclusion of team data from AI training; confirm the arrangement that actually applies to the account.

Retention also has several scopes. The general policy describes up to 30 days for certain member information after withdrawal and up to three years for reviewed or annotated training data kept separately from accounts. Provider processing has its own stated retention terms, including up to 30 days in the English policies. A deletion request or a hidden thread is not evidence of immediate erasure across every recipient.

Check whether you are entitled to upload the material, especially an unpublished draft, restricted reading or another person’s comments. The terms retain user content ownership while granting Liner a license for operating, promoting and improving its service and developing new ones; shared links can give other people access. They also set a minimum age tied to local consent rules and require parental or guardian permission for under-18 users. Follow the applicable institutional and account requirements before using the tool with learners or confidential work.

Supporting documentation: [6] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Pricing, free access and plan checks

The current plan page lists Free, Pro, Max and Team, with separate monthly and annual billing presentations. Paid research actions still have a credit budget; unlimited Advanced Search is not a promise of unlimited Agent runs. The Free card describes daily credits, while the Credits FAQ describes monthly Free recharging. Check your account’s balance and reset date before planning a sequence of tasks. File counts and per-file size also vary by plan. Confirm renewal, cancellation and any extra-credit purchase or auto-recharge setting before paying.

Confirm billing period, renewal terms, limits and regional availability on the provider’s current plan page before paying.

Questions about Liner

Is Liner Scholar the same as Liner search?

The current product family separates everyday search, academic research in Scholar and drafting in Write. Choose the surface for the task and inspect its controls and credits rather than assuming identical behavior across web and mobile.

Can Liner write a literature review I can submit?

Its Literature Review agent produces an overview or draft structure, but the feature page says not to submit it unchanged. You still need an appropriate search, critical reading, source checks and your own argument within the assessment’s rules.

Does a Liner citation prove the sentence is supported?

No. It identifies a candidate reference to inspect. Read the relevant passage, compare the context and outcome with the exact claim, and check the publication details before using the reference.

Is Liner free and are Agent runs unlimited?

A Free plan is listed, while paid plans have Agent credit budgets and upload limits. The plan page describes daily Free credits, but the credit FAQ uses monthly recharge wording. Check the actual account allowance and reset date; unlimited Advanced Search does not establish unlimited research-Agent use.

Does disabling Data Control stop every use of my uploads?

The documented setting concerns Liner’s service-model training, with stated exceptions. The applicable privacy policy separately describes AI-provider processing, advertising arrangements, sharing and retention. Check the regional policy and institutional permission instead of treating the toggle as a zero-processing guarantee.

Sources and research notes

This guide synthesizes official product information with our editorial assessment of academic use. Suggested exercises are examples you can repeat; they are not results of tests we performed. We do not infer accuracy from a provider’s marketing claims.

Found a changed feature or a factual error? Send the exact page and an official source to info@ai-essay.com. Read our editorial policy for how we handle corrections.

Liner Scholar for Research: Sources, Citations & Credits