# These FREE Tools Feel Illegal for Researchers to Use > [!question] Lingering Questions > - Would Asta's "75 perfectly relevant papers" claim hold up against a manual relevance check on a known literature set, or is "perfectly relevant" marketing language for "returned 75 results"? > - Is the OpenAlex-API-key-to-VOSviewer-request-URL step actually navigable for a non-technical researcher, or does it quietly require enough setup friction to undercut the "free and easy" framing? > [!tip] Article Ideas > - A tested, step-by-step writeup of the OpenAlex + VOSviewer pipeline against one of Courtney's own research questions, verifying (not just repeating) the video's claims. > [!link] Cross Reference > - [[Personal Knowledge Management MOC]] — free-tool evaluation and literature-mapping workflows overlap with the vault's own PKM tooling interest > [!quote] Vocabulary > - **OpenAlex** — free, open bibliographic database used here as the data source for a citation network > - **VOSviewer** — free desktop tool for visualizing bibliometric networks (co-citation, keyword co-occurrence maps) ## Bib capsule Unnamed creator, "These FREE Tools Feel Illegal for Researchers to Use," YouTube, 2026. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PKZvNq4M-Q ## Author's thesis (Adler Q1+Q2) A free pipeline — OpenAlex for data plus VOSviewer for visualization — substitutes for paid bibliometric-mapping software, letting a researcher generate a citation/co-occurrence network map of a field for free and use it to spot research gaps and outliers. The video also demos an AI research assistant (Asta) returning search results it characterizes as "perfectly relevant," a claim the video doesn't independently verify. ## Key arguments (≤3) 1. The central demonstrated claim: OpenAlex + VOSviewer produces the same kind of network-map output that paid bibliometric software charges for. 2. The practical payoff is diagnostic, not just visual — the resulting map is used to "find research gaps," which is the actual reason a researcher would want it. 3. A secondary tool (Asta) claims high relevance in its results, but that claim is shown, not tested. ## Claim atoms ### OpenAlex plus VOSviewer replaces paid bibliometric mapping > [!quote] ID:rw_7PKZvNq4M-Q_1 > "This is just a really great way to get a visual oversight of a research field and a group of papers for free." [00:11] — after demonstrating the rendered VOSviewer network map; the video's central, demonstrated claim that a specific free pipeline substitutes for paid bibliometric software. ### VOSviewer network maps surface research gaps and outliers > [!quote] ID:rw_7PKZvNq4M-Q_2 > "I can zoom in and find research gaps." [00:11] — describing what the rendered map is used for; the practical payoff/use case for the whole workflow, not visualization for its own sake. ### Asta's "perfectly relevant" claim goes unverified > [!quote] ID:rw_7PKZvNq4M-Q_3 > "Found 75 perfectly relevant papers." [04:12] — Asta's UI response to an "OPV devices" query; the clearest example in the video of an unverified quality claim treated with humor but not independently checked. ## Permanent candidates - **No-pricing-page is a checkable proxy for genuinely free tools** — supported by the OpenAlex+VOSviewer claim atom; promoted below. ## Processing checklist - [ ] Spot-check Asta's "perfectly relevant" claim against a known literature set - [ ] Try the OpenAlex API key → VOSviewer request-URL workflow once to confirm the step is actually navigable - [x] Connect into the relevant MOC — [[3. Resources/MOCs/Personal Knowledge Management MOC]] ## Links - [[3. Resources/MOCs/Personal Knowledge Management MOC]] — a free literature-mapping workflow is directly relevant to the vault's own research-tooling practice - [[3. Resources/Readwise/Articles/These FREE Tools Feel Illegal for Researchers to Use]] — full source transcript and deep-read notes