Independent AI index
for professionals

Home / Safety / Writefull for research & science

ThinqLab Ltd / Writefull (London, United Kingdom)

How safe is Writefull for research & academia?

GDPR profileOur summary of what the provider itself publishes about your data: whether the data sits in the EU (2 points), whether there is a certification or GDPR guarantee (1) and whether the provider is based in NL or the EU (1). 3 or 4 points is Strong, 2 Good, 1 Limited, 0 Unknown. How we measure for research & scienceUnknown

The maker of Writefull publishes little about data protection. Check this before you put confidential research & science data into it.

Where does Writefull stand in research and science?

Shared spot 20 of 30 options for research & academia (professional tools and general assistants) on the GDPR profile. 4 options, like Writefull, have a profile rated Unknown. Each tile is an option we follow for this field; click for the check.

Strong5
Good6
Limited8
Unknown4
Caution7

Published safeguards

None of these three found in what the provider publishes; you can read what is there below. Is this your tool? Add the details

Writefull's own language models, trained on published articles, supplemented by OpenAI (GPT) and, in a few features, Anthropic (Claude), both named by Writefull itself. The servers are located in the Netherlands; Writefull states that it does not store texts and does not train on user input. Note: for the features that run through third parties, OpenAI and Anthropic temporarily retain the text (around 30 days).

How to use Writefull safely

  • Use the business variant and sign a data processing agreement (DPA).
  • Do not enter unnecessary personal data into prompts; anonymise where possible.
  • Ask the provider explicitly where data is stored and processed.
  • Keep a professional in the loop: never use AI as a source: every reference must be traceable to the original article, as invented or misattributed citations are the most common error.

Stronger or equally strong in research & science

CradleCradle (Amsterdam, the Netherlands and Zürich, Switzerland)ASReview LABUniversiteit Utrecht (the Netherlands)KeeniousKeenious (Norway)ScholarcyEverway Opco Limited / Scholarcy (Antrim, United Kingdom)SciSpacePubGenius Inc. (Milpitas, United States)

Latest developments

9 November 2026Claude Code stores approved commands containing passwords in settings.local.json

If you choose "Yes, and don't ask again" in Claude Code, the tool saves the command verbatim in .claude/settings.local.json, including passwords or API keys. Apiiro found real secrets in 1,122 of 104,185 public copies on GitHub, including 379 database passwords. Keep the file out of git, use variables for secrets, and replace any keys that have already leaked. source

5 November 2026Flaw in Lockdown Mode patched

Via pop-up windows in the HTML preview of code blocks, an attacker could bypass Lockdown Mode and siphon off your chat history, via a manipulated prompt, GPT or shared chat. OpenAI patched the flaw on 18 September 2026; Check Point published the details on 5 November. Users do not need to do anything. source

November 2 2026Message threads (beta) fall outside Zero Data Retention

With message threads in the Claude API, Anthropic stores the conversation, the system prompt and the tools on the server, encrypted in memory and not on disk, until up to one hour after the last use. The feature does not qualify for Zero Data Retention; your other ZDR agreements still apply. If you work with personal data under ZDR, only enable threads if your DPIA covers it. source

Questions

How safe is Writefull for research & science?
The maker of Writefull publishes little about data protection. Check this before you put confidential research & science data into it. The provider publishes little on this: ask about it before business use.
Does Writefull train on my data?
Writefull's own language models, trained on published articles, supplemented by OpenAI (GPT) and, in a few features, Anthropic (Claude), both named by Writefull itself. The servers are located in the Netherlands; Writefull states that it does not store texts and does not train on user input. Note: for the features that run through third parties, OpenAI and Anthropic temporarily retain the text (around 30 days).
What should I look out for with AI in research & science?
Never use AI as a source: every reference must be traceable to the original article, as fabricated or wrongly attributed citations are the most common error. Unpublished data, research proposals and peer-review manuscripts are confidential or commercially sensitive, so do not enter them into a consumer account without a data processing agreement, and check whether the provider stores your input or uses it for training (publishers usually prohibit this explicitly for peer review). If you work with personal data from research participants, the GDPR and your own ethics review apply: running models locally or using an EU-hosted tool with data minimisation is then the safe route. Finally, document your search strategy and your AI use: journals and funders increasingly ask for this, and a review must remain reproducible.

Source documents

www.writefull.comwww.writefull.commy.writefull.com

Everything about Writefull Best AI for research & science

Summarised by the editorial team from provider documentation · not legal advice

Last checked: 27 October 2026 · How we check

Next stepAll 30 options for research & scienceProfessional tools and general assistants side by side, on GDPR profile, price and quality.

Every Friday: what changed in AI for research & science

New models, prices, oversight and tools, with sources and what it means for you. One email a week, unsubscribe with one click.

View a sample

We only use your address for this newsletter. You confirm first by email.