For Masters and PhD students in South Africa
A step-by-step NotebookLM method, a scoring workbook and a living AI use register your supervisor can check. Built around South African university AI policies, starting with NWU's.
R299 for the first 100 buyers, then R399. Instant download.
Screening scorecard
Source C: Australian compliance study, 2019
Weighted score
68 / 100
Strong method, wrong context: useful for comparison, not for the core argument. Scores suggested by NotebookLM and set by the student after checking each quote.
Every database search returns more than you can read. Deciding which sources deserve a full read eats weeks.
Your university allows some AI use and forbids other uses. Most students can't tell where the line is, so they either avoid AI or hide it.
If your supervisor asks how you used AI, a vague answer creates doubt. A living register of every AI use settles it.
How it works
One page on your questions, context and statutes. You write it; no unpublished research goes into the AI.
Use your student Google account and the kit's instructions, which stop the AI from writing prose.
NotebookLM scores each source on 5 criteria with page-referenced quotes. You check every quote and set the final score.
Read your Core sources in full, write your review yourself, and declare your AI use with the template provided.
What's inside
The four-phase workflow, the scoring matrix with its rules, and the red lines that keep you within policy.
Calculates weighted scores out of 100, sorts sources into Core, Supporting and Background, and summarises progress for supervisor meetings.
Policy check, screening scorecard, quote verification, gap check, contradiction finder, examiner questions, and notebook instructions that block prose writing.
The living register supervisors ask for: one row per AI use, logged on the day, with what you did with the output.
A Word template for your research questions, criteria and AI commitments, with a signature block for your supervisor.
An AI declaration and a methodology paragraph that describes your screening as a method, ready to adapt.
A hypothetical Master of Environmental Management dissertation, screened source by source.
Built for South African rules
North-West University's Council approved a formal AI policy on 19 November 2025. It requires clear attribution of AI use in research and restricts uploading research in progress or unpublished work to AI tools.
ScreenLit follows those rules by design: a Screening Brief instead of your proposal, a living AI use register, a declaration template, and a paragraph that describes your screening as a method in your methodology chapter. Step 0 of the guide shows you how to check your own university's rules before you start.
Pricing
Launch offer: first 100 buyers
R299 R399
From R12,000
A free brief explains what the method does and doesn't do, and how to check a student's screening in ten minutes.
Download the Supervisor BriefNo, and nothing honest can promise that. ScreenLit keeps AI out of your writing altogether and gives you a record of exactly how you used it.
It depends on your university and your supervisor. Step 0 of the guide shows you how to check, and the free Supervisor Brief helps you ask.
No. The method works on the free version. We recommend signing in with your student Google account, which has stronger data protection.
Yes, they do different jobs. Mendeley stores and cites your sources. ScreenLit decides which ones deserve a place, and records how you decided.
Probably not, but do not hide it. The guide walks you through recording it and raising it with your supervisor.
Check with your supervisor or librarian first. Open-access articles, government reports and legislation are the safest to upload.
No. NWU is the worked example because its policy is detailed. The method works for any Masters or PhD literature review.
The method rests on your brief, the prompts and the workbook, not on any one button. Updates are included for 12 months.