@InLaTeXbotFree
80 / 100
Score
Telegram bots for the practical side of studying and research: rendering LaTeX formulas in a chat, checking a draft for plagiarism before you submit it, following new papers on arXiv and PubMed, and turning a DOI into a BibTeX entry.
| # | Bot | Price | Languages | Inline | Groups | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | @InLaTeXbot | Free | EN | yes | no | 80 |
| 2 | @Plagiarismsearchbot | Freemium · 5 free submissions of up to 1,000 words each for bot users, per the service | — | no | no | 74 |
| 3 | @dailyarXiv_bot | Free | EN | no | no | 73 |
| 4 | @BroletterBot | Subscription · 7-day free trial, no card required | EN | no | no | 66 |
| 5 | @bibtexbot | Free | EN | no | no | 65 |
| 6 | @Open_Sciencebot | Free | EN · RU | no | no | 63 |
| 7 | @gscholar_alert_bot | Free | EN | no | no | 63 |
We did not run these bots by hand; the assessment rests on what can be checked in the open. For each bot we opened its t.me page to confirm it is a live bot, then found a source on the owner's side: an open repository and the date of its last change, the service's own website linking to the bot, or the author's announcement. Prices and free limits come from the service's pages. For this subtopic we also noted where your text goes when you upload it, whether summaries are written by AI, and which sources a paper feed actually covers.
Telegram can bring new research to you in three ways, and each suits a different reader. A category feed such as dailyArXiv (@dailyarXiv_bot) posts each day's new papers from arXiv, bioRxiv, medRxiv, ChemRxiv and PubMed at an hour you set, which works when your field fits into a few categories. Keyword alerts in GSAbot (@gscholar_alert_bot) watch Google Scholar and arXiv for your exact terms, closer to how a thesis topic is defined. Broletter (@BroletterBot) explains one arXiv paper each morning, but its summaries are written by Gemini models: use them to notice work, and cite only a paper you have read.
A formula typed as plain text in a study-group chat is unreadable; InLaTeXbot (@InLaTeXbot) renders LaTeX in any chat, as long as the query fits in about 250 characters. One missing entry for a .bib file is quicker to get from BibTeXBot (@bibtexbot), by sending a DOI, an arXiv ID or an ISBN, than from a reference manager, though you should check author names and capitalisation. For a first pass over a new topic, Open Science Bot (@Open_Sciencebot) searches PubMed, Crossref and Google Scholar from one chat. Before a deadline, PlagiarismSearch.com (@Plagiarismsearchbot) gives five free checks of up to 1,000 words: read which passages matched, and expect your university's system to show a different percentage.
We found no official Telegram bot from Zotero, Mendeley, Overleaf, Semantic Scholar, Crossref, arXiv, ResearchGate, Scite, Consensus, Elicit, SciSpace, Mathpix or Scribbr. Apart from the plagiarism checker, every bot here is an independent project, most of them run by one person, so look at when each was last updated and keep your library's or the journals' own alerts for anything you cannot afford to miss. No bot changes the rules of academic integrity either: a low similarity score does not make generated text your own work.
Not without your instructor's permission: passing off generated text as your own breaches academic integrity, just like plagiarism. Rules on AI differ between universities and courses, so check yours, and where AI is allowed, say how you used it.
Not exactly. PlagiarismSearch.com (@Plagiarismsearchbot) compares your text with web pages and publications, while your university runs its own system, so the percentages differ. Use its five free checks of up to 1,000 words to find unquoted passages and missing references, and look at which fragments matched rather than at the number alone.
Better not: that password often unlocks your email, grades and personal data, and the author of a third-party bot receives it as plain text. Pick bots that only need your group or course code, or official ones the university itself links to.
