AI for professors and lecturers
Ultramarine Work drafts and checks the grant sections, IRB forms, exams and referee reports on your desk. It works from the files already in the project folder: the aims draft, the FOA, the protocol, the rubrics you reuse every term.
Referee-report-24-1187.docxExampleReferee Report on Manuscript 24-1187, Thermal Tolerance and Gut Microbiome Turnover in Juvenile Brook Trout
Summary of the submission
The authors hold juvenile brook trout at three temperature regimes for 28 days and relate shifts in gut microbial composition to critical thermal maximum. The question matters for cold-water fisheries under warming, and the sampling design is clearly reported. The central claim, that microbiome turnover predicts thermal tolerance, rests on correlations from a single cohort.
Major concerns
Temperature was applied at the tank level, with three tanks per treatment, yet the 72 fish are analyzed as independent, so the effective sample size is nine. The mixed model should include tank as a random effect. The causal language in the abstract and discussion goes beyond what this correlational design can support.
CheckedConfidential comments to the editor sit in a separate file, as the journal’s form requires.
How it works
- 1
Gather the folder
Pull in the FOA and its forms, your aims draft, the summary statement from the last round, the IRB template, your CV, past syllabi, exams and rubrics, and the anonymized course evaluation export.
- 2
Name what you need
Ask for the critique, the budget workbook, the consent form or the exam. It reads the folder, builds the file in your template, and notes anything it could not verify.
- 3
Review, then decide
Every claim and number carries the file or source it came from. You check the citations against PubMed, confirm the budget lines add up, and decide what goes to the SPO, the IRB or the journal.
Ask it for
“Critique the specific aims and approach in my R01 resubmission against the FOA review criteria and the four criticisms in the summary statement from last year.”
R01-aims-critique.docx“Budget the 3-year R01: postdoc at $61,000, two PhD students at 50% effort and $21,500 salary, fringe 27.5% staff and 9.5% students, F&A 54.5% MTDC, 3% raises.”
R01-budget-y1-y3.xlsx“Redraft the consent form for protocol 25-0147 so the key information section reads plainly and every required element is present.”
Consent-form-25-0147.docx“Write the 100-point final exam for BIO 214 with an answer key and an analytic rubric that maps every question to the four course objectives.”
BIO214-final-key-rubric.docx“Organize my margin notes into a referee report on the journal’s criteria and scoring form, with the confidential comments to the editor kept separate.”
Referee-report-24-1187.docx“Map this year’s de-identified capstone work products to each ABET student outcome, flag any outcome without a direct measure, and draft the improvement actions.”
ABET-SO-mapping.xlsx
Inside the University Faculty & Academic Research mode
Research grant proposal
Checks the aims page and research strategy against the FOA review criteria and page limits, then drafts the Introduction answering the prior summary statement.
Grant budget and justification
Builds the budget by year and category with fringe and F&A on MTDC and cost share checked against 2 CFR 200, and writes the justification line by line.
Biosketch and current pending
Pulls the biosketch and current and pending (other) support entries from your CV and publication lists, and flags overlapping support and missing effort.
Data management and sharing plan
Lays the DMS plan out the way NIH expects it: the data-type and repository table, the sharing timeline, and the written justification for what cannot be shared.
IRB submissions and informed consent
Prepares IRB applications, amendments and exempt requests, and rewrites consent forms with a plain key information section and every required element present.
Scientific manuscript
Runs the manuscript against CONSORT or STROBE and your journal’s instructions, and drafts the cover letter and the point-by-point response to reviewers.
Literature and evidence review
Logs the search string and the databases, builds the PRISMA flow, and summarizes each study in the folder with its own risk-of-bias note.
Peer review report
Organizes your review notes onto the criteria and scoring form the journal publishes, with your confidential comments to the editor in their own section.
Assessment and rubric design
Writes the exam to your course objectives, verifies the answer key against the items, and drafts an analytic rubric whose performance levels actually differ.
Accreditation and program review
Maps course and capstone work products to the standards, flags outcomes with no direct measure, and drafts the self-study and program reviews.
- Office skills
- Excel, Word, PowerPoint, PDF
- Tools
- Read, edit and write files, Search files, Run code, Search and read the web, View images
- Connectors
- SharePoint, Google Drive, Gmail, and additional custom connectors
- House style
- Your fonts, layouts and rules, on every file
Who it’s for
Professors, lecturers, adjunct and clinical faculty, and graduate teaching assistants, for the teaching, research and service slice of academic work.
Questions
Can I upload a manuscript I’m refereeing?
No, not under the policies most journals publish. Wiley, APA and Springer Nature bar reviewers from uploading any part of a submission to an AI tool, because peer review is confidential. Ultramarine Work sends the content it works on to Paper Instruments’ servers for processing, so a copy of the manuscript in the project folder would go there too. What journals do allow is help with your own comments, with the tool disclosed in your submission.
Can it grade my students’ papers?
No, grading is yours, and it should stay that way. Student records carry limits that apply before the question even comes up: graded work must be synthetic or de-identified under the applicable standard before it goes in the folder, and swapping names for pseudonyms is not enough. Identifiable records require an authorized institutional deployment and any applicable agreements, which is a call for your institution, not one you can make alone.
Is AI-assisted drafting allowed by NIH and NSF?
Yes, for drafting and checking, and responsibility stays with you. NIH’s 2025 notice lets AI assist with limited aspects of an application but treats an application substantially developed by AI as not the applicant’s original idea, and NIH screens for that. NSF permits AI help and asks for disclosure in the project description, but its reviewers cannot upload proposal content to non-approved tools. Where the line falls is a call for you and your sponsored programs office.
Will the citations be real?
Nothing guarantees verified citations, so you check every reference against PubMed or the original papers before anything leaves your desk. The skills make it cite the file each statement came from and flag what it could not find instead of guessing, and it can search the web and read the sources it finds. Fabricated references get papers retracted, and journals now require DOI links so citations can be checked.
Where does my data go?
Ultramarine Work changes files only in the project’s folder. When a request needs it, it can read files elsewhere on your computer, never passwords, keys or app data, and you can turn that off in settings. The model runs on Paper Instruments’ servers, so the content it works on is sent there to be processed. Paper Instruments is SOC 2 Type II, and our security and compliance details are on our compliance page.