Turn complex research into clear time budgets fast. Balance reading, writing, analysis, and recovery today. Stay on track with daily goals and smart breaks.
| Scenario | Sources | Pages/source | Pages/hour | Breaks | Buffer | Efficiency | Estimated hours |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short literature review | 12 | 10 | 28 | 10% | 10% | 100% | ~13.8 |
| Medium research brief | 25 | 14 | 30 | 12% | 12% | 95% | ~33.7 |
| Deep comparative study | 45 | 18 | 24 | 15% | 15% | 90% | ~92.6 |
Start with volume. If you plan 12 sources at 18 pages each, that is 216 pages. At 24 pages per hour, reading time becomes 9.0 hours. Add per-source setup, searching, and extraction: for example 10 + 8 + 12 minutes equals 30 minutes per source, or 6.0 hours across 12 sources. This calculator totals those components so the estimate stays auditable. Track assumptions and refine them after a short pilot session.
Reading speed changes with complexity. A dense methods paper may drop from 30 to 15 pages per hour, doubling time. Use the "notes and appraisal" minutes to represent deeper evaluation, such as coding variables or rating quality. If your average appraisal is 20 minutes per source, 12 sources add 4.0 hours. Small adjustments here often matter more than tweaking breaks by a few minutes. Prefer median pace, not your best day.
Research is not only reading. Synthesis, outlining, drafting, revising, and formatting can exceed intake time. A practical split is 40% intake, 60% production. For a 20-hour project, that implies 12 hours for writing and edits. Include meeting time, supervisor feedback, and citation cleanup as project hours. The calculator keeps these as separate line items so you can negotiate scope without arguing about speed. Add versioning and secure file organization time too.
Buffers protect deadlines. A 15% buffer on 22 core hours adds 3.3 hours. Efficiency models interruptions: at 80% focus, divide by 0.80, turning 25.3 hours into 31.6 hours. This is why "I have six hours" can produce four effective hours. Pair buffer and efficiency with breaks to avoid overly optimistic plans that collapse during heavy weeks or exam periods. Recheck weekly and adjust before drift grows.
Convert totals into daily targets with days available. If final effort is 31.6 hours and you have 8 days, you need 3.95 hours per day. Compare that with your cap, like 3 hours per day, to spot a gap early. Reduce sources, shorten pages, or increase speed only when justified. The plan becomes actionable when you block time: two 120-minute sessions plus one 30-minute review. Protect one catch-up day.
Count any distinct item you must locate, read, and cite: a paper, chapter, report section, dataset documentation, or interview transcript. If one report has three separate relevant sections, treat them as three sources for better accuracy.
Time a 10-page sample at normal focus, including scrolling and quick re-reads. Convert minutes to pages per hour and use the median of three runs. Reduce the rate for dense methods, math, or unfamiliar terminology.
Yes. Highlighting is faster than structured notes, but you still spend time labeling, summarizing, and extracting key numbers or quotes. If you mainly highlight, lower notes minutes and increase appraisal minutes to reflect deeper evaluation.
For predictable work, 10-15% often covers small delays. Use 20-30% when approvals, data access, or collaborators can block progress. If you repeatedly miss targets, raise buffer before assuming you can permanently work faster.
Breaks are planned recovery time you expect to take. Efficiency captures unplanned loss: interruptions, context switching, and low-energy periods. An 80% efficiency means only 48 minutes of each hour becomes productive work, even before breaks.
Yes. Estimate totals for the whole project, then assign work items to people. Keep the same efficiency assumptions per person and add coordination hours for meetings and merge reviews. Recalculate after the first milestone to calibrate team speed.
Important Note: All the Calculators listed in this site are for educational purpose only and we do not guarentee the accuracy of results. Please do consult with other sources as well.