This demo will present the Research Assistant (RA) tool developed to assist with six main types of research tasks defined as standardized instruction templates, instantiated with user input, applied finally as prompts to well-known--for their sophisticated natural language processing abilities--AI tools, such as ChatGPT (https://chat.openai.com/) and Gemini (https://gemini.google.com/app). The six research tasks addressed by RA are: creating FAIR research comparisons, ideating research topics, drafting grant applications, writing scientific blogs, aiding preliminary peer reviews, and formulating enhanced literature search queries. RA's reliance on generative AI tools like ChatGPT or Gemini means the same research task assistance can be offered in any scientific discipline. We demonstrate its versatility by sharing RA outputs in Computer Science, Virology, and Climate Science, where the output with the RA tool assistance mirrored that from a domain expert who performed the same research task.

Structured science summaries or research contributions using properties or dimensions beyond traditional keywords enhances science findability. Current methods, such as those used by the Open Research Knowledge Graph (ORKG), involve manually curating properties to describe research papers' contributions in a structured manner, but this is labor-intensive and inconsistent between the domain expert human curators. We propose using Large Language Models (LLMs) to automatically suggest these properties. However, it's essential to assess the readiness of LLMs like GPT-3.5, Llama 2, and Mistral for this task before application. Our study performs a comprehensive comparative analysis between ORKG's manually curated properties and those generated by the aforementioned state-of-the-art LLMs. We evaluate LLM performance through four unique perspectives: semantic alignment and deviation with ORKG properties, fine-grained properties mapping accuracy, SciNCL embeddings-based cosine similarity, and expert surveys comparing manual annotations with LLM outputs. These evaluations occur within a multidisciplinary science setting. Overall, LLMs show potential as recommendation systems for structuring science, but further finetuning is recommended to improve their alignment with scientific tasks and mimicry of human expertise.