Interlude: Plot Twists, Manuscript Story Structure, and Open-Access Publishing Fees

Rejection is common in scientific and medical writing. If you've submitted manuscripts or grants, you've likely faced rejection—sometimes more than once. And no matter how many times it happens, it's never easy.

I think I can safely say that we’ve all been there: the sting in your chest, the feelings of frustration and devastation, the “Maybe I’m not cut out for this” whisper.

You might even believe that the rejection is the end of the story.

But what if we reframe that story—as a plot twist.

Plot twists aren't endings. They're moments when the story gets interesting.

When you reframe rejection as a story development, you can spark curiosity and possibility about what comes next. You can start looking at the next chapter rather than dwelling on the previous one.

The end of one chapter becomes the start of another.

So the next time you face rejection, turn "My paper got rejected. What now?" into "Plot twist: my paper got rejected. What's next?"

Same event. Different momentum.

Now onto this week's round-up...

💌 Round-up

💻 From My Desk

​The Built-In Story Structure of Research Papers​
Did you know that original research papers have a built-in story structure that helps you tell a compelling narrative? In this video, you’ll learn how the classic IMRaD format (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) of original research manuscripts maps directly onto a common story structure. And you’ll discover a handy framework to remember the five essential elements of a story in research manuscripts.

👓 Reading

​What scientists need to know about sharing—and protecting—their published work​
"NIH’s policy will require that a peer-reviewed version of any paper resulting from agency-funded research be available in a free public repository upon publication—a shift from a previous policy allowing a 12-month delay. . .paid open access typically comes with a Creative Commons (CC) license that delineates how others can use the content of the paper. The most common, dubbed CC-BY (referring to “by attribution”), allows wide reuse, provided users credit the author. Other variants can restrict commercial use, or any adaptations of the work."

​Seeing the full picture: the RIVA-C checklist for research infographics​
"The full checklist comprises 10 items across 3 categories: (1) study characteristics, (2) results, and (3) conclusions/takeaway message—each accompanied by detailed explanations and examples to aid practical implementation. The checklist was piloted over a 6-month period to evaluate its clarity, relevance, and usability."

​NIH Proposes Five Strategies to Cap Open-Access Publishing Fees​
"The proposal outlines five options for reducing costs, the first one being eliminating all publication costs. Another option would be to set a limit on allowable costs per publication, and a third option would do the same but increase the average amount by about $1,000 to compensate peer reviewers. A fourth and fifth option would involve setting a limit on the total amount of an award that can be spent on publication costs, or to do that and also limit the per-publication cost."

🖥️ Watching

​Harvard Professor Explains The Rules of Writing — Steven Pinker​
In this episode, Steven Pinker, author of The Sense of Style, shares his thoughts on why there is so much bad writing, what makes writing harder than speaking, why academics are terrible writers, why AI writing feels so bland, and so much more. Although you can also listen to the ​podcast episode​, I highly recommend watching the video so that you can see Steven's joy as he shares his thoughts.

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Noticing Good Writing, Short Words, and Scientific Fraud

How do you know if writing is good?

This might seem like a loaded question. But I think there's a simple answer. And it relates to cooking.

How do you know if cooking is good?

When you taste a meal, you'll notice if it has too little or too much salt. But would you notice if the meal has the right amount of salt?

Likely not. I have yet to hear someone say, "Wow! This meal has the perfect amount of salt!"

More likely, you won't even notice how much salt is in the food. In other words, cooking is good when you don't notice the salt. You focus on the meal.

Similarly, if writing is good, you don't notice the writing. You focus on the content.

Think about your favorite novel. As you were reading it, did you notice the writing? Or did you get enveloped in the story and what was happening with the characters?

Now think about a scientific manuscript (or other document) that you read. As you were reading it, did you notice the writing? Or did you get enveloped in the information and what was happening with the data and interpretations?

When writing is bad, you notice how the writing can be improved. When writing is good, you don't notice the writing at all.

Now onto this week's round-up...

💌 Round-up

💻 From My Desk

​How Short Words Boost Clarity in Scientific Writing​
Dense, complex language can burden your readers with a cognitive load and make it harder for them to understand your writing. In this video, you’ll learn how short, simple words can boost clarity and readability, without offending readers.

📆 Upcoming

​Managing Flow: A Framework for Connecting Ideas and Guiding Readers​ – August 13, 2025 @ 10 am Pacific Time
I was delighted when the Scientific Editors Network (ScENe) invited me to speak to its members about flow in writing. During the webinar, I'll be sharing valuable writing principles to help create a smooth flow that guides readers through the content, builds on their knowledge, and keeps them engaged in the writing. You must be a member of ScENe to join.

...Oh, and if you're interested in inviting me to speak about flow (or another topic), hit reply and let me know. I'd be delighted to speak for your team, organization, or event.

👓 Reading

The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly​
". . . we demonstrate through case studies that i) individuals have cooperated to publish papers that were eventually retracted in a number of journals, ii) brokers have enabled publication in targeted journals at scale, and iii), within a field of science, not all subfields are equally targeted for scientific fraud." I also recommend reading ​this blog post​ that complements the article.

​A study section chair's experience with the new Simplified Review Framework​
In this LinkedIn post, a study section chair offers four recommendations for researchers to consider for reviews that use the new Simplified Review Framework: (1) write for a general audience, (2) significance is the most important review criterion, (3) be thoughtfully responsive when resubmitting, and (4) keep submitting proposals. This short post is well worth the read.

​Modernizing Research and Evidence Consensus Definitions: A Food and Drug Administration–National Institutes of Health Collaboration​
"The MoRE Consensus Definitions are intended to facilitate effective communication about clinical research and enable transparency around innovative clinical study designs. This publication makes available the glossary developed through this collaboration and serves as an accessible resource for the clinical research enterprise."

💬 Quote

“As far as he can achieve it, readability is as important for the scientific writer as it is for the novelist.” – Donald O. Hebb

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Daily Baselines, Communicating Science, and Publication Fees

Several years ago, I tried the Pomodoro technique. Although I found the technique great in theory, I didn't find that it worked well for me in practice. I often need 15 to 20 minutes to really get into the zone of editing.

Then ​this post​ suggested that you find a baseline time each day and use that time for the technique. For example, on a particular day, if you find that you lose focus after 10 minutes, you only study (or work) for 10 minutes at a time that day. Then the next day, you find a new baseline time for that day.

I am intrigued by this strategy. I like that it considers our daily fluctuations in focus and ​productivity​.

What do you think? Do you use the Pomodoro method? If so, do you use the standard baseline of 25 minutes, or a different baseline? Hit reply and let me know.

Now onto this week's round-up...

💌 Round-up

💻 From My Desk

Practical Advice for Communicating Science in All Formats​
Are you looking for a book that will give you a solid foundation of all types of science communication? In this review of The Chicago Guide to Communicating Science by Scott Montgomery, you'll learn about a must-have resource for anyone looking to communicate science clearly in any format and to any audience.

👓 Reading

​Communicating science: The “significance” of statistics​
"How can scientific writers clearly communicate the 'significance' of their statistics? First, describe scientific importance before statistical significance, to ensure that those other, often overlooked, aspects are considered. . .Second, always accompany “significance/significant” with a modifying term – 'statistical' or 'scientific.' Even better, replace 'significant' with other words or phrases that convey the specific aspect of “importance” being described."

​NIH to crack down on excessive publisher fees for publicly funded research​
"NIH will introduce a cap on allowable publication costs starting in Fiscal Year (FY) 2026, ensuring that publication fees remain reasonable across the research ecosystem. The policy aims to curb excessive APCs [article processing charges] and ensure the broad dissemination of research findings without unnecessary financial barriers."

​BTAA, Springer Nature announce first unlimited open access publishing agreement​
"This OPA [open publishing agreement] deal offers all authors across participating institutions unlimited open access publishing in Springer’s hybrid journals portfolio — with no fees, no caps, no limits and no hassle — while at the same time uniformly expanding access to those titles regardless of past local subscriptions."

💬 Quote

"As ideas are preserved and communicated by means of words, it necessarily follows that we cannot improve the language of any science, without at the same time improving the science itself; neither can we, on the other hand, improve a science without improving the language or nomenclature which belongs to it." – Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Framing for Reviewers, Overlooking Problems, and AI in NIH Grants

Earlier this week, ​this post​ landed in my feed. In the video, Matt shares 5 ways to market a Snickers bar. Same candy bar, but different packaging to appeal to different audiences.

This tailored packaging is also an important strategy for writing grants. Different grant agencies have different review panels, so you need to package—or write—your grant for that particular panel.

For example, at the NIH, study sections (as they stand today) are experts in your field. So you can use more technical language and frame how the project will advance the field. At a foundation, the review panel will likely have experts, and it may also have patients, donors, or other members of the public. So you need to write with more accessible language and frame how the project will be meaningful to everyone on the review panel.

Same project, but different packaging to appeal to different audiences.

Or, as I like to say, it's all about the framing.

So the next time you write a grant, do some research on the agency and anticipated reviewers, and frame the project in a way that appeals to them.

Now onto this week's round-up...

💌 Round-up

💻 From My Desk

​10 Strategies to Edit Smarter and Spot Writing Mistakes​
Have you been looking at your draft for so long that you can no longer see the mistakes, gaps in logic, and other problems in the text? In this video, you’ll learn 10 strategies to help you stop overlooking the problems in your writing, see your text with fresh eyes, and craft more effective scientific and medical documents.

👓 Reading

​Supporting Fairness and Originality in NIH Research Applications​
”NIH will not consider applications that are either substantially developed by AI, or contain sections substantially developed by AI, to be original ideas of applicants. If the detection of AI is identified post award, NIH may refer the matter to the Office of Research Integrity to determine whether there is research misconduct while simultaneously taking enforcement actions..."

"NIH will only accept six new, renewal, resubmission, or revision applications from an individual Principal Investigator/Program Director or Multiple Principal Investigator for all council rounds in a calendar year. This policy applies to all activity codes except T activity codes and R13 Conference Grant Applications."

​What your Results section isn’t​
In this article, Stephen Heard shares three things that "your Results section isn’t. Or at least, some things it isn’t. Or at least, some things it shouldn’t be". These things include: the story of your research life, a do-over for the way you organize things, and a chance to try out cool new data visualization.

​What do the public think of preprints?​
“Recent studies suggest that, even when provided with a definition, the general public remains unclear on what a preprint is. The public’s perception of research credibility depends more on the broader framing of research findings than on disclosure of preprint status. . .These findings suggest that disclosure of preprint status alone may not be enough to build public understanding. Dr Alice Fleerackers, co-author of both studies, argues that the scientific community must also do more to help the public understand how peer review works.”

💬 Quote

“It all starts with being curious and humble; putting yourself in the shoes of your audience and going on the journey with them.” – Samara Johansson

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Blooming Drafts, Flawed Advice, and Linguistic Shifts

Earlier this week, I was walking my dog and stopping to smell the roses along the way. I grew up with lots of rose bushes in the yard, and my mom would make rose petal jelly, so I always enjoy the nostalgia of smelling a fresh blossom.

After smelling a particularly fragrant rose, I thought about how developing a draft relates to growing roses. I think the process is quite similar.

The central message is like the seed. Just like the seed is essential for a rose bush to grow, the central message is the essence of the story in the draft.

The outline is like the roots. We can't see the roots grow beneath the surface, but we know they are important to create a solid foundation for the rose bush to grow. Similarly, an outline creates a solid foundation for a story before we can really see the text take shape into a draft.

The first draft is like the stems of the rose bush. The stems grow up from the foundation of roots, and we can start to see a bush emerge. Similarly, a first draft is when the outline gets formed into paragraphs, and we can start to see the draft emerge.

The subsequent drafts are like the leaves of the rose bush. Just like the leaves show signs of liveliness, the refinements made during later drafts start to bring the text to life.

Then the final draft is like the rose. For the rose bush, all the steps to this point culminate to form a beautiful rose. For the draft, all the steps to this point culminate to form an impactful draft—the draft blooms.

I love this idea of a blooming draft. I think it helps to reframe writing from a daunting task to a beautiful blossoming.

Now onto this week's round-up...

💌 Round-up

💻 From My Desk

​Why "The Best" Scientific Writing Advice Fails (and What Works Instead)​
Many scientists and clinicians are advised to mimic what they read in the literature. Although this advice is well-intended, it has fundamental flaws that contribute to poor scientific and medical writing. In this video, you’ll learn why mimicking published papers is not the path to clear, impactful writing—and what you should do instead.

👓 Reading

Examining linguistic shifts in academic writing before and after the launch of ChatGPT: a study on preprint papers​
"…the results indicate a significant increase in the proportion of LLM-preferred words in ​abstracts​, revealing the widespread influence of LLMs on academic writing. Additionally, we observed an increase in lexical complexity and sentiment in the abstracts, but a decrease in syntactic complexity, suggesting that LLMs introduce more new vocabulary and simplify ​sentence​ structure. However, the significant decrease in cohesion and readability indicates that abstracts have fewer connecting words and are becoming more difficult to read.”

​False authorship: an explorative case study around an AI-generated article published under my name​
"The findings highlight the risks posed by AI-generated and misattributed research articles, which threaten the credibility of academic publishing. Ways to mitigate these issues include strengthening identity verification mechanisms for DOIs and ORCIDs, enhancing AI detection methods, and reforming research assessment practices. Without effective countermeasures, the unchecked growth of AI-generated content in scientific literature could severely undermine trust in scholarly communication.”

​Fraudulent studies are undermining the reliability of systematic reviews: on the prevalence of problematic images in preclinical depression studies​
"…peer-reviewed reports with problematic images are common within the field of preclinical depression studies. We believe that a majority of these reports had been, in part or completely, fabricated or falsified…The consequences of our findings are concerning. Any preclinical systematic review and meta-analytical investigation carried out in this field will potentially be misled by fraudulent studies.”

💬 Quote

“Tell the readers a story! Because without a story, you are merely using words to prove you can string them together in logical sentences.” –Anne McCaffrey

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Teaching, Recognizing Participants, and Reclaiming Writing Time

When I first started college, I wanted to be a math teacher. I loved math (some things change) and teaching (some things don't).

Along the way, I often heard the saying, "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach."

But I've come to realize how deeply untrue that saying is—especially in science and medicine, where teaching and mentoring are at the heart of progress.

Teaching, in any form, demands a deep understanding and an ability to connect with others. Whether you’re explaining a complex concept to a colleague, mentoring a student, or presenting your research, you’re not just sharing knowledge—you’re building bridges for others to cross.

We all have opportunities to teach and inspire. Let’s celebrate the skill it takes to make difficult ideas clear, to answer unexpected questions, and to help others grow.

As Aristotle said, “Those who know, do. Those that understand, teach.”

Here’s to all of you who do—and teach.

Now onto this week's round-up...

💌 Round-up

🎉 Featured

​Choosing a language that recognizes the contributions of people who take part in research​
I'm delighted to share my latest publication in the EMWA Journal! In the article, I share how the term subjects can fuel disrespect, mistrust, and bias in clinical practice and research; how participants is a more precise and respectful term; and what other terms you can use to more accurately, precisely, and respectfully describe people who take part in clinical research.

...Oh, and if you want to learn more about language that fuels stigma and bias, check out my free ​Inclusive Language Fundamentals​ course.

💻 From My Desk

How to Spend Less Time in Meetings and More Time Writing​
Are meetings eating up your writing time? When I ask researchers what pulls their attention away from their writing, the number one answer I get is: meetings. In this video, I share five strategies that have helped me get control of my meetings and that will help you spend less time in meetings and more time writing.

👓 Reading

​Formalistic data and code availability policy in high-profile medical journals and pervasive policy-practice gaps in published articles: A meta-research study​
"Poor data and code (DAC) sharing undermines open science principles….DAC availability policies of 931 Q1 medical journals (Clarivate JCR 2021) were evaluated, with PPGs [policy-practice gaps] quantified across 3,191 articles from The BMJ, JAMA, NEJM, and The Lancet….Only 9.1% (85/931) of journals mandated DAC sharing and availability statements, with 70.6% of these lacking mechanisms to verify authenticity, and 61.2% allowing publication despite invalid sharing.”

​Explosion of formulaic research articles, including inappropriate study designs and false discoveries, based on the NHANES US national health database​
"We found evidence that research failed to take account of multifactorial relationships, that manuscripts did not account for the risks of false discoveries, and that researchers selectively extracted data from NHANES [National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey] rather than utilizing the full range of data available. Given the explosion of AI-assisted productivity in published manuscripts..., we highlight a set of best practices to address these concerns, aimed at researchers, data controllers, publishers, and peer reviewers, to encourage improved statistical practices and mitigate the risks of paper mills using AI-assisted workflows to introduce low-quality manuscripts to the scientific literature.”

💬 Quote

“Everyone wants the summary. But the summary is what's left after someone else decided what matters. Their priorities aren't yours. Their filters aren't yours. When you operate on summaries, you're thinking with someone else's brain.” –Shane Parrish

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Word Limit Dichotomy, Authorship Grids, and the Evolution of Scientific Writing

Word limits are a common challenge in scientific and medical writing. And they create an interesting dichotomy.

Many authors dread ​word limits​ because they have to do the hard work of concisely expressing their thoughts and ideas in a certain number of words.

However, most readers appreciate word limits because concise writing is clearer and faster to read, which respects their time and attention.

And time and attention are our greatest assets.

So the next time you face a word limit, think of the challenge as an opportunity—not only to share your knowledge and ideas, but also to show respect for your readers.

Now onto this week's round-up...

💌 Round-up

💻 From My Desk

​How to Avoid Authorship Issues in Publications
Are you tired of managing authorship issues for your scientific and medical manuscripts? Are you frustrated with last-minute authorship decisions that spark conflict among your team? In this video, you’ll learn a clear, objective, and collaborative strategy to prevent authorship debates before they start—helping your team work together smoothly and collaboratively from day one.

👓 Reading

​The evolution of scientific writing: an analysis of 20 million abstracts over 70 years in health and medical science​
This article is a must read! "This historical understanding provides insight into our past writing cultures, how they have changed, and where we stand as science communicators today. We found that scientists are increasingly using writing components that reduce cognitive load and improve reader understanding. Despite these positive efforts we found that many scientists still feel a need to adhere to 'The Official Style' that falls back on dense and difficult prose. We advocate for more accessible science writing so that its discoveries not only encourage inter-disciplinary research, but are also spread across wider society as part of the sharing of knowledge."

​Why aren’t more journals publishing plain language summaries?
"73% of journals surveyed did not allow author-submitted PLS [plain language summaries], citing reasons such as a perceived lack of reader or author demand, lack of relevance to journal content, and insufficient resources. . .the survey highlights an ongoing need for greater standardisation, more consistent peer review, and improved visibility of PLS. It also revealed that some respondents were unsure of their own journal’s PLS policies, underscoring the need for better internal communication and training."

🖥️ Watching

​Do you think he’s guilty?​
In this reel, @englishenjoyed shares a fun skit on the ambiguity of "biweekly" and how language "is a marvelous tool of deception."

💬 Quote

"'Over the past fifty years or so', wrote David Mermin in 1990, scientists have allowed the conventions of expression available to them to become entirely too confining. The insistence on bland impersonality and the widespread indifference to anything like the display of a unique human author in scientific exposition, have not only transformed the reading of most scientific papers into an act of tedious drudgery, but have also deprived scientists of some powerful tools for enhancing their clarity in communicating matters of great complexity. Scientists wrote beautifully through the nineteenth century and into the early twentieth. But somewhere after that, coincident with the explosive growth of research, the art of writing science suffered a grave setback, and the stultifying convention descended that the best scientific prose should sound like a non-human author addressing a mechanical reader." –Iain McGilchrist

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Unworthy Hacks, Author Order, and Image Quality

Most people love a good life or time-saving hack. I certainly do. But I recently learned about one that made me rethink the value of hacks.

Last week, I was scrolling on Instagram and saw a ​post​ about a different way to tie your shoes. As an undergrad, I majored in math and was curious about topology and knot theory, so I was intrigued by the post.

As I watched the video, I thought, "How cool is this?! And if it saves me time, then maybe I'll change the way I tie my shoes!"

Then at the end of the video, the mathematician said, "you get the exact same knot in a third of the time, which at the end of your life will have probably saved you like five minutes."

Five minutes over a lifetime? I'm sure I'll burn more than five minutes figuring out how to tie that knot and then retraining my brain to tie my shoes the new way.

Not worth it.

I think the same can be true for other hacks that we discover.

So when you learn about a new hack, consider it carefully. It might be cool, but it also might not be worth your effort.

Now onto this week's round-up...

💌 Round-up

🎉 Featured

​The Key Elements of an Introduction Section of a Research Manuscript Authors​
I'm delighted to share my latest publication in the AMWA Journal. In the article, I share the key elements of the Introduction section of a research manuscript. These key elements give readers context, highlight the significance, explain the rationale, define the relevance, state the study question, and introduce the approach.

💻 From My Desk

​How to Order Authors in a Research Manuscript​
Struggling to decide the order of authors for your scientific or medical manuscript? Curious about the significance of the first, last, and corresponding author positions? In this second video of the authorship series, you’ll learn about the different author positions in a byline, why these positions matter, and practical strategies for choosing the order of authors.

👓 Reading

​Do articles with multiple corresponding authorships have a citation advantage? A double machine learning analysis approach​
"Our results of the case study based on the field of “Chemistry & Medicine” demonstrate that, when controlling for other variables, articles with multiple corresponding authors indeed tend to receive more citations than those with a single ​corresponding author​. In addition, the citation advantage is more pronounced when multiple corresponding authors are from different institutions. However, an excessive number of corresponding authors may weaken the citation advantage."

​The do’s and don’ts of scientific image editing​
"Whereas scientists receive extensive training on how to collect data, less work goes into teaching them how to showcase the information in publications, presentations and grant applications. . .Some journals and scientific societies are now developing guidelines to help researchers to present their hard-won data well while maintaining image integrity. . . But not all institutions and small journals have the means to educate researchers, much less check every manuscript for ​image quality​. Several organizations are therefore developing further guidelines and attempting to align the standards that publishers and scientific societies are expecting researchers to use."

🎧 Listening

​How Science Communication Can Step Up Amid Federal Cuts – NPR Science Friday​
In this episode, Felice Frankel, a science photographer and research scientist at MIT, shares her thoughts on why researchers need to get training in, support with, and encouragement to communicate their work to the public. I found myself saying "Yes!" multiple times while listening to this episode. I highly recommend it.

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: 150th Edition, Authorship Series, and Publishing Peer Reviews

Earlier this week, I was reflecting on this newsletter, and I was curious about how many editions I've sent out. So I counted them.

I was surprised to find that this week marks the 150th edition of the Interlude! 🎉

I know that you may have been reading this newsletter since the beginning, or you may be reading this newsletter for the first time. But no matter how long you've been subscribed, I'm grateful for every moment that you spend with me.

Thank you so much for sharing your time and attention with me every week. I appreciate you.

Now onto this week's round-up...

💌 Round-up

💻 From My Desk

​Who Really Qualifies for Authorship in Research​
Are you unsure about who qualifies for authorship and who should be acknowledged in your scientific or medical manuscript? In this video, you’ll get a practical guide that covers who qualifies for authorship, what are common unethical practices to avoid, and how to recognize all contributors, including support from AI tools. This video is the first in a three-part series covering everything you need to know about authorship in scientific and medical publishing.

👓 Reading

​Nature looks to open up 'black box' of science by publishing peer review files​
"...the journal announced it would include peer review files with the papers it publishes, offering access to once behind-the-scenes processes in which reviewers critique scientific papers and authors respond with changes. . . Nature’s new process will make the referees’ reports and authors’ responses public by default. The journal’s move comes at a time when trust in science has dipped."

​The Use of Person-Centered Language in Scientific Research Articles Focused on Psychosis​
"Our analysis of recent literature published on disorders of psychosis found that most of the screened articles contained ​stigmatized language​, such as labeling or emotional terms in describing the people diagnosed with the conditions. Previous research has found associations between stigmatizing language and negative attitudes toward those individuals among healthcare providers."

…Oh, and if you’re interested in learning more about stigmatizing language, check out my ​Inclusive Language Fundamentals​ course—for free!

​A.I. Might Take Your Job. Here Are 22 New Ones It Could Give You.​
"...in many fields where the work product is written text, you aren’t just being paid for the words you submit. You’re being paid to be responsible for them: the facts, the concepts, the fairness, the phrasing. This article is running with my byline, which means that I personally stand behind what you’re reading..."

💬 Quote

"Good writers are those who keep the language efficient. That is to say, keep it accurate, keep it clear." – Ezra Pound

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Autostereograms, CONSORT Diagrams, and Publication Extenders

When I was a kid, Magic Eye books were really popular. These books contain autostereograms, which are 2D images that can create the optical illusion of a 3D scene (​check out these examples​).

I was fascinated by the idea of autostereograms. But no matter how hard I tried, I couldn’t see the 3D images.

I tried for decades. Yes, decades.

I used every trick I could find. I’d press the page against my nose and slowly move the book away from my face. I’d try crossing my eyes and tilting the pages. I'd ask friends for tips and to guide me through their process.

Nothing worked.

I thought I was just "bad" at it. After feeling disappointed so many times, I gave up.

And then, many years later, I discovered the problem.

I needed glasses to help correct my depth perception.

I still remember the day I got my glasses. I brought them home and immediately started looking at autostereograms. I was so delighted to finally see the 3D images.

Why am I sharing this story?

Because what you see as a limitation or flaw may be a solvable problem.

And sometimes you don't need to put in more effort. You just need a different perspective or the right tool.

Now onto this week's round-up...

💌 Round-up

💻 From My Desk

​How to Create a CONSORT Flow Diagram in PowerPoint​
Are you tired of building CONSORT flow diagrams from scratch or struggling with clunky templates that you found on the web? In this video, you’ll learn a faster and easier way to create CONSORT flow diagrams for clinical studies using PowerPoint. And you can download a handy template to help you get started!

👓 Reading

​Publication Extenders: Yes, They Are Worth the Effort​
"While some of the research cited is a few years’ old, as new evidence is published and presented, the conclusions remain the same: publication extenders play an important role in increasing the impact and reach of scientific articles, communicating research more effectively and making it more accessible to all audiences and, as a result, combatting the mis- and that is so readily available online."

​ICMJE Ceases List of Journals Claiming to Follow Its Recommendations​
"The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) previously provided a list...of journals that have contacted the ICMJE to request listing as a journal that follows the ICMJE's recommendations...Unfortunately,...many of the listed journals do not actually adhere to the ICMJE recommendations. The inability of the ICMJE to verify the accuracy of this list combined with the increase in predatory scholarly publishing practices contributed to the committee's April 2025 decision to cease maintenance of this list."

​SPIRIT 2025 Statement: Updated Guideline for Protocols of Randomized Trials​
"The process led to the addition of 2 new protocol items, revision to 5 items, deletion/merger of 5 items, and integration of key items from other relevant reporting guidelines. Notable changes include a new open-science section, additional emphasis on the assessment of harms and description of interventions and comparators, and a new item on how patients and the public will be involved in trial design, conduct, and reporting."

🎮 Playing

​Wordosis​
Do you play Wordle? Wordosis is just like Wordle, but with a medical spin! You get 6 attempts to guess a medical word.

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Language Bias, Methods Sections, and Misused Words

I've often heard peer reviewers suggest that researchers have "a native English speaker" edit their papers. Although I understand the intention behind this advice—to make the writing clearer—I think the issue could be approached more thoughtfully.

I believe that all researchers can benefit from working with a skilled editor. After all, many researchers have not had any training in writing beyond their undergraduate coursework. And everyone can use a little extra support to make their writing shine—even me!

But working with a native English speaker is not the answer. This suggestion, though well-meaning, can unintentionally reinforce language bias.

A great editor or writer doesn't need to be a native English speaker. And not all native English speakers are good editors.

I’ve edited many papers for native English speakers who needed support from a ​professional editor​. And I've known many excellent editors and writers whose native language isn't English.

So rather than suggesting editing by "a native English speaker," let's encourage support from "a professional editor." This way, we keep the focus on the valuable skills and perspectives of editors who have invested in mastering their craft.

Now onto this week's round-up...

💌 Round-up

💻 From My Desk

The 3 Most Misused Words in Scientific Writing​
Words hold the power of persuasion ​because​ they influence how readers think, act, and feel. And misusing words can chip away at the clarity and credibility of your writing. In this video, you’ll learn the three most misused words in scientific and medical writing—and how choosing the most precise words can strengthen your message.

📆 Upcoming

​Anthill Med Comms Mixer​ – June 20, 2025 at 10 am PT
The world of medical communications is welcoming and supportive. The Anthill is hosting a free, online event for freelance medical writers to get to know colleagues, ask questions, and have fun. This informal, virtual event will include question prompts and breakout discussions and is open to anyone in medical communications.

👓 Reading

​What your Methods section isn’t​
"...because the thing that unifies my three recommendations is that everything about writing a paper should be done with the reader in mind. The kind of Methods section that serves your reader best may well not be the kind that’s most intuitive, or easiest, to write. But what’s most intuitive, or easiest, to write just doesn’t matter. The reader does."

​Science-integrity project will root out bad medical papers ‘and tell everyone’​
"The project, which has a US$900,000 grant from funder Open Philanthropy in San Francisco, California, to run for two years with a team of three to five people, aims specifically to root out flawed papers that have a serious impact on medical guidelines by skewing meta-analyses..."

🖥️ Watching

​But why is he always reading during his hours of labour?​
This video by @englishnjoyed is a fun skit on a common problem I see with subject-verb agreement. Tools like Grammarly often give incorrect advice on fixing this issue, so I highly recommend watching this video.

💭 Thoughts

The best way to describe complexity is with simplicity.

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Uninterrupted Focus, Memorable Stories, and Trends in Authorship

Do you think that multitasking will help you accomplish more in less time?

Try the following exercise (courtesy of ​this post​ that landed in my feed):

Step 1: Count to 10.

Step 2: Cite the first 10 letters of the alphabet.

Step 3: Count to 10 and cite the first 10 letters of the alphabet by alternating between one number and one letter (eg, 1, A, 2, B...).

What did you notice? Was the third step harder and slower?

The first two steps are single tasks, so you can easily and quickly complete them. But in the third step, you need to switch between those tasks, which is harder and slower.

Out of curiosity, I timed myself while completing all three steps. I completed the first two steps in 2 seconds each, for a total of 4 seconds. How long did it take me to complete step 3?

15 seconds. That's nearly 4 times as long! 🤯

This exercise is just a simple example of how uninterrupted focus on one task at a time can help you accomplish more tasks faster and easier.

So when you need to focus and get in a flow state, avoid interruptions and multitasking so that you can get more done faster and easier.

Now onto this week's round-up...

💌 Round-up

💻 From My Desk

Make Your Science Memorable with SUCCESS Principles​
Do you want to make your scientific and medical writing memorable? In this video, I break down the six SUCCES principles of memorable messages from the bestselling book Made to Stick by Chip and Dan Heath. I also share how these principles are relevant to scientific and medical writing. And I add a seventh principle to take your story to the next level—and add a letter to spell SUCCESS correctly.

📆 Upcoming

​Enlighten Medical Experts with the Power of Plain Language​ – June 4, 2025
I was delighted when the AMWA Mid-Atlantic chapter invited me to speak about how plain language is not just a tool for communicating with the public. Plain language is also a powerful tool for communicating with expert readers. During this presentation, I'll debunk misconceptions and share data-proven tips for simplifying writing to craft clear prose that makes the reader’s job easy. You must be a member of the AMWA Mid-Atlantic chapter to join.

...Oh, and if you're interested in sponsoring a seminar or workshop for your group, just reply to this email. I'd be delighted to exchange ideas!

👓 Reading

Scientific writing in physiology: confused/misused terms and phrases​
"In this perspective, we attempt to provide general guidance when selecting between or among options for commonly confused and misused terms in scientific writing. We have organized inaccurate, confusing, ​commonly misused​, and misleading words and phrases into separate tables categorized as general language, demographic descriptors, general science, physiological sciences, and exercise physiology."

​Global Trends in the Value of Author Order Across Medical Publications: A Cross-Sectional Bibliometric Study​
"We collected papers and examined the ​author order​ in the fields of ‘Medicine General Internal’ and ‘Surgery’. Hierarchical clustering revealed that the positions of the corresponding authors varied according to country and specialty. These findings highlight the need for clear and internationally accepted standards regarding the value of author order in academic papers, particularly in the context of advancing international collaborative research."

​Hyperprolific authorship: Unveiling the extent of extreme publishing in the ‘publish or perish’ era​
"The results reveal that hyperprolific ​authors​ are concentrated in fields such as Clinical Medicine, Biomedical Research, and Chemistry, and in countries with substantial research investments, including China, the United States, and Germany. Contrary to concerns about a trade-off between quantity and quality, hyperprolific authors tend to produce higher-impact publications on average compared to their peers. Their output is strongly associated with extensive co-authorship networks, reflecting the role of collaboration in enabling prolific publishing."

🖥️ Watching

​Why storytelling is more trustworthy than presenting data​
"Because storytelling and data is [sic] actually not this 'either/or.' It's an 'and.' They actually create this power ballad that connects you to information differently. To understand how, we have to first understand what happens neurologically when you're listening to a story and data."

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Lessons in Waiting, Communication Illusions, and Medical Art

I've recently learned an important lesson in waiting.

Several months ago, I applied for diplomate status with the Board of Editors in the Life Sciences. I've had the first-level "ELS" status since 2019 and finally had the courage to apply for the diplomate status of "ELS(D)."

For the application, I had to submit a portfolio of my editing work for review by a panel of editors with diplomate status. And let me tell you that I was nervous to have my work dissected by a panel of highly skilled editors!

Honestly, I think my nerves were a good reminder of how my collaborators (whom you might call "clients") might feel when they send me a project to review.

I've always been aware of how my collaborators might feel when they receive my editing suggestions, which is why I'm thoughtful about the changes I suggest and the comments I add to the draft. But I had not considered how they might feel while waiting for my editing suggestions.

I suppose one difference is that my collaborators have the benefit of a set date for when they will get their project returned to them, whereas I only knew I would get news within a handful of months. But I think this process showed me that I can do better by also considering how my collaborators might feel while waiting for my suggestions.

So the next time you are waiting for something, ask yourself what lessons you can take away from the process.

And in case you're wondering, after nearly 4 months of waiting, I finally heard news this week. I'm thrilled to share that I'm now one of less than 40 international editors who have the diplomate status Editor in the Life Sciences! 🎉

Now onto this week's round-up...

💌 Round-up

💻 From My Desk

​The #1 Cause of to Bad Scientific Writing​
What is the top contributor to poor scientific and medical writing? The curse of knowledge. In this video, you'll learn what the curse of knowledge is, how it tricks all of us into thinking we’re communicating well, how I discovered my curse of knowledge, and five actionable strategies you can use to break the curse in your writing.

👓 Reading

​Scientia machina: a proposed conceptual framework for a technology-accelerated system of biomedical science​
"Creating a new technology-accelerated knowledge system for biomedical science—what I’m calling here Scientia Machina—may be best approached through first articulating the conceptual and epistemological framework of the current system of biomedical science as it moves from data to information to evidence to knowledge and its application. Along the way it passes through layers of trust and is eventually captured in the artifacts of biomedical science we have come to rely on and expect. For applications of emerging technology—such as the automated complex information processing of AI and the automated trust and governance of blockchain—to be most beneficial to science, we should use them to systematically augment and accelerate these processes and create the artifacts of science while maintaining or improving the basic conceptual framework of biomedical knowledge discovery and implementation."

​Granting access: Development of a formal course to demystify and promote predoctoral fellowship applications for graduate students​
"Outcomes of GWB [Grant Writing Basics] include a substantial increase in the number of applications submitted and fellowships awarded. Rigorous evaluation provides evidence that learning objectives were met and that students gained confidence in both their scientific writing skills and their ability to give constructive feedback. Our findings show that investment in formal training in written scientific communication provides a foundation for good writing habits, and the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in this vital aspect of a scientific research career."

🧰 Tools

​Smart Servier Medical Art​
"Are you a medical student, healthcare professional, or researcher searching for high-quality medical illustrations to elevate your educational materials, ​research articles​, or ​presentations​? Look no further—Servier Medical Art is your ultimate resource, offering over 3,000 free, professional-grade medical images tailored to meet your needs."

💬 Quote

“The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has been accomplished.” –George Bernard Shaw

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Training Every Day, Choosing a Journal, and AI Disclosures

I was scrolling on Instagram the other day, and ​this post​ grabbed my attention.

Basically, the creator makes a visual case for how athletes train every day to master their craft, but business professionals only train every once in a while. The creator then asks, "Are we doing something wrong?"

I think so. And I think the same case can be made for scientific writing (or any form of academic writing).

Many researchers believe they ​spend 25%–50% (or more) of their time writing​. Yet, few organizations offer adequate training in writing. And if they do, they might host a webinar or a half-day workshop. Or they might throw you in front of a firehose by cramming as much as possible into a weekend retreat.

You might walk away from these trainings feeling energized and with a few nuggets of helpful information, but the rest will fall from your memory within a few months or weeks (or less). This approach is not the best way to learn and retain something, especially when it comes to mastering the craft of writing.

That's why I created the Redwood Ink Academy. It's a place where researchers and professional writers can get longer term access to course materials, my ongoing support, and an encouraging community (which is so important in the current research climate).

My intention here is not to make a sales pitch. My intention is to highlight that there is a better way to develop your skills that goes beyond reading a book, attending a webinar, or participating in a weekend training. And my hope is that you will take steps to find the most fruitful ways to get the support you need to become the best writer you can be.

Now onto this week's round-up...

💌 Round-up

💻 From My Desk

​How to Choose the Right Journal for Your Manuscript​
Choosing a journal for your manuscript can be challenging. Many people focus on the impact factor, or they are overwhelmed with so many choices that they just submit to journals that they’ve published in before. But choosing the right journal for your manuscript can make or break the broader, longer-term impact of your work. In this video, I walk you through the most important factors to consider when choosing a journal for your manuscript.

👓 Reading

​Rethinking journal metrics: how enhanced publication content improves engagement​
"…57.9% of HCPs still rely on impact factor when selecting articles to read or choosing where to publish. However, such metrics do not always reflect the true value or reach of research. To move away from this outdated method of research assessment, publication professionals must advocate for a shift towards more diverse and transparent metrics, as outlined by the Declaration on Research Assessment. Additionally, efforts should focus on encouraging HCPs to engage with a more varied pool of publications, select appropriate target journals, and promote open access.”

​Disclosing artificial intelligence use in scientific research and publication: When should disclosure be mandatory, optional, or unnecessary?​
"We distinguish between mandatory, optional, and unnecessary disclosure of AI use, arguing that disclosure should be mandatory only when AI use is intentional and substantial. AI use is intentional when it is directly employed with a specific goal or purpose in mind. AI use is substantial when it 1) produces evidence, analysis, or discussion that supports or elaborates on the conclusions/findings of a study; or 2) directly affects the content of the research/publication. To support the application of our framework, we state three criteria for identifying substantial AI uses in research: a) using AI to make decisions that directly affect research results; b) using AI to generate content, data or images; and c) using AI to analyze content, data or images.”

🎧 Listening

​Megapod: The Crisis in American Science ​– Plain English Podcast
Several months ago, I said that I would keep this newsletter free of the challenges we are facing in American science. I am making an exception for this podcast episode, mostly because I learned a lot about the history of the NIH. The episode includes three expert interviews about (1) what’s happening to American science and why it’s so serious, (2) how the American science system works and where it came from, and (3) how American science could be reformed.

💬 Quote

Last week, I was in a meeting with Tamsen Webster, founder of the Message Design Institute (we collaborate for TEDxNewEngland). During the meeting, she made a casual statement that struck me so profoundly that I immediately wrote it down to share with you. Her words are more relevant now than ever.

“Inference is the enemy when it comes to understanding.” – Tamsen Webster

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Manuscript Order, Beyond PubMed, and Secret Cameras in Excel

Last week, I made a small error that many editors might find discreditable.

Just before my newsletter went out, I thought I'd do another quick pass through the text. I wanted to change the wording ever-so-slightly (meaning, the change didn't really make a difference). And in a mad dash to schedule the newsletter, I made the change quickly.

And that quick change resulted in...a typo. Right out of the gate. Sigh.

When I noticed the typo, I immediately felt embarrassed. But rather than get swallowed in my embarrassment over a typo, I paused and thought about the lessons I could take away from it.

Lesson #1: Avoid making "quick" last-minute changes that aren't crucial. These changes could lead to much bigger problems than a typo.

Lesson #2: Give yourself grace. You can be highly skilled at something and still overlook things and make mistakes (especially when rushed).

Lesson #3: You are your own harshest critic. (This one is actually something that my college advisor shared with me and that has stuck with me ever since.) Be kind to yourself.

Although I'm still a bit embarrassed by the small typo, I think it was a great reminder of some bigger life lessons.

What is something that a typo has taught you? Hit reply and let me know.

Now onto this week's round-up...

💌 Round-up

💻 From My Desk

​Best Order to Draft Sections of a Research Manuscript​
Are you struggling to figure out the best order to draft the sections of your research manuscript? Whether you’re just starting out, have bits and pieces drafted, or are looking to optimize your writing process, this video is for you. You’ll learn a practical, 10-step process for drafting the main sections of a research manuscript that will help you build momentum and save time and energy.

👓 Reading

​Inclusion of Retracted Studies in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
"This study found that retracted studies have been included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, with retractions occurring mainly after the publication of the systematic review. The inclusion of retracted studies can impact the results and interpretation of reviews. Quality control measures should be implemented to prevent the dissemination of unreliable data in scientific literature.”

🎧 Listening

Beyond PubMed: CME's Hidden Treasure Map​ – Write Medicine
PubMed is a well-known resource for evidence-based information for researchers, clinicians, educators, and medical communicators. But with recent uncertainties at the NIH, many people are concerned about PubMed's future. In this podcast episode, medical librarian Rachel Wedeward, MLIS, AHIP, reveals why PubMed matters and practical alternatives to this platform.

🖥️ Watching

​The Problem of Creating Value with Words (Highlights)​
In this video, Larry McEnerney, former director of the University of Chicago's writing program, shares his thoughts on the role of words in creating value in academic writing, the relationship between thinking, writing, and reading; why an outdated model of science leads to writing with no value; and more.

🧰 Tools

Excel has a secret camera button​
Do you need to take a picture of a table in Excel but don't want the image to look like an amateur screenshot? This feature lets you capture an image of an entire table or part of a table. And if you change a value in the table, Excel will automatically update that value in the image.

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: YouTube, Human Expertise, and Self-Retraction

I have big news!

I spend a lot of time thinking about how I can help researchers and other professional writers learn how to write better (and enjoy the process!). So after mulling over the idea for longer than I'd like to admit, I've decided the take a big leap...

I started a ​YouTube channel​! 🎉

On the channel, I'll share weekly videos packed with principles, frameworks, and strategies that can help you optimize your writing and writing process.

I'm so excited about this new journey. And I've already uploaded my first two videos (linked below). I'm still fine-tuning things, but I hope that you will at least find the information in these first videos valuable.

If you like the videos, please give them a thumbs up so that I know the type of content that you find most helpful. And be sure to subscribe so you don't miss a thing.

And if there is something you'd like me to discuss on the channel, add your ideas to the video comments. I started this channel for you, so I want to be sure I'm creating something that you will find valuable.

​Check out the channel​

Now onto this week's round-up...

💌 Round-up

💻 From My Desk

​This book changed how I think about scientific writing​
In this first episode of the book club series, we'll dive into my favorite book about scientific writing: Writing Science in Plain English by Anne E. Greene. This book is a must-read for anyone who wants to make their scientific and medical writing clear, engaging, and accessible. I share my favorite takeaways and practical tips you can use to transform your writing, bridge gaps between disciplines, and connect with a broader audience.

​This common phrase could manipulate reviewers​
Are you using a common phrase in your scientific and medical writing that could be eroding your credibility? In this video, I reveal the two-part phrase that could be perceived as manipulating reviewers, editors, and other readers. You’ll learn why this language might weaken your arguments, erode your credibility, and damage trust in your work, you, and science. And you'll learn a better way to show the novelty of your work and persuade reviewers.

👓 Reading

​CONSORT 2025 Statement: Updated Guideline for Reporting Randomized Trials​
"We have made substantive changes to the CONSORT checklist. We added 7 new checklist items, revised 3 items, deleted 1 item, and integrated several items from key CONSORT extensions. We also restructured the CONSORT checklist, with a new section on open science. The CONSORT 2025 statement consists of a 30-item checklist of essential items that should be included when reporting the results of a randomized trial and a diagram for documenting the flow of participants through the trial."

​Artificial intelligence in academic writing: Enhancing or replacing human expertise?​
"The study reveals that AI-generated articles exhibit higher readability scores...but may lack depth in analysis. Evaluators could correctly identify AI authorship with 61 % accuracy, and preferences were nearly even between AI-generated (47 %) and human-written (44 %) articles. While AI improves accessibility and efficiency in academic writing, its limitations in clinical experience, originality, and nuanced analysis highlight the need for human oversight. The integration of AI should be as a complementary tool rather than a replacement for human expertise."

​Self-retraction as redemption: Forgiveness for repentant authors​
"...this paper proposes a model for Hierarchical Self-Retraction Forgiveness (HSRF). The model is specifically designed for retractions related to misconduct, aiming to mitigate systemic obstacles to retraction. By alleviating concerns over reputational damage, it seeks to encourage both authors and their affiliated institutions, as well as the higher supporting layers of the system, to engage in self-retraction without fear of social or institutional penalties."

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Unconventional, Time Management, and Misunderstanding AI

Happy National DNA Day! Today, I'm recalling one of the most seminal scientific papers ever published—​Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid​ by Watson and Crick.

This paper had a profound impact on the scientific community that lives on more than 70 years later. Yet, the style of writing deviates from conventions that many people believe are expected today.

The text is brief and direct. The authors use first person, ​simple words​, and ​short sentences​ and paragraphs. And readers do not need to read a sentence more than once to understand the meaning.

I'll admit that the writing isn't perfect (no writing is). I would certainly suggest a few edits (especially to remove ​expletive pronouns​). But this paper is an incredible example that you don't have to follow writing conventions to make a valuable contribution to science. Especially when those writing conventions are not backed by evidence and plague poor scientific writing.

So when you think you need to follow the conventional path to fit in, maybe you just need to follow the unconventional path to stand out.

Now onto this week's round-up...

💌 Round-up

👓 Reading

​Has AI Replaced Editors?​
"Fundamentally, the question of whether AI is a good substitute for a human editor is a misunderstanding of what AI is. AI is a tool. It can be useful in helping you spot errors or improve your writing, but it can also make poor or redundant suggestions that will waste your time and confuse your readers. In this way, though AI is cheap and fast, it cannot replace the knowledge and expertise of a ​professional editor​."

​20,000 scientists publish at unrealistic rates, study says​
"The analysis...found that around 10% of those on the list—around 20,000 scientists—published an improbable number of papers. Some produced hundreds of studies per year with hundreds to thousands of new coauthors annually. . .What surprised Pilia and Mora is the sheer number of authors who seem to be using unethical practices, such as ​coauthorship​ listing without adequate input to the research, to boost their publication numbers. Around 1,000 of them are early-career researchers who have worked in academia for 10 years or less."

​Productivity​
In this article, Sam Altman shares many of his ​productivity​ tips. The tip that I'm mulling over: "In general, I think it’s good to overcommit a little bit. I find that I generally get done what I take on, and if I have a little bit too much to do it makes me more efficient at everything, which is a way to train to avoid distractions (a great habit to build!). However, overcommitting a lot is disastrous."

🖥️ Watching

​How to manage your time more effectively (according to machines)​
"Human beings and computers alike share the challenge of how to get as much done as possible in a limited time. Over the last fifty or so years, computer scientists have learned a lot of good strategies for managing time effectively — and they have a lot of experience with what can go wrong. Brian Christian shares how we can use some of these insights to help make the most of our own lives."

💬 Quote

"There is no form of prose more difficult to understand and more tedious to read than the average scientific paper." – Francis Crick

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Procrastination, Weird Phrases, and Metrics of Success

What is the root of procrastination?

Many of us think that procrastination is due to problems with motivation or time management. And we think that we can solve these problems with willpower and better organization.

But procrastination is not rooted in discipline. It's rooted in emotion.

Procrastination is often due to avoiding uncomfortable emotions—the stress, fear, or discomfort we associate with a task.

“Procrastination is an emotion regulation problem, not a time management problem.” – Dr. Tim Pychyl

So how can you overcome procrastination? Here's a simple, three-step process that I've found helpful.

1️⃣ Notice when you're procrastinating

When you find that you’re avoiding something, take a moment to ask yourself how you are feeling. Identify the emotion that is getting in the way.

2️⃣ Reframe the task

After you identify the emotion, shift your mindset. If you're feeling anxious, break the task into smaller tasks. If you're feeling uncomfortable, remind yourself that discomfort is often an opportunity to grow.

3️⃣ Take just one tiny step

After managing your mindset, take the smallest possible action to just get started. Often once you start, you'll find momentum to keep going.

How do you overcome procrastination? Hit reply and let me know.

Now onto this week's round-up...

💌 Round-up

🎉 Featured

​Interview on the The Bold PhD Podcast​
I was thrilled that Gertrude Nonterah, PhD, invited me to talk with her on The Bold PhD Podcast. Check out the episode to hear our conversation on the challenges of starting a career in medical writing, the journey of climbing the career “jungle gym,” and the ways you can hone your writing skills. ​Web​ | ​Apple​ | ​YouTube​

👓 Reading

​A weird phrase is plaguing scientific papers – and we traced it back to a glitch in AI training data​
"Earlier this year, scientists discovered a peculiar term appearing in published papers: 'vegetative electron microscopy'.

"This phrase, which sounds technical but is actually nonsense, has become a 'digital fossil' – an error preserved and reinforced in artificial intelligence (AI) systems that is nearly impossible to remove from our knowledge repositories.

"Like biological fossils trapped in rock, these digital artefacts may become permanent fixtures in our information ecosystem.

"The case of vegetative electron microscopy offers a troubling glimpse into how AI systems can perpetuate and amplify errors throughout our collective knowledge."

​On defining your own metrics of success​
"If you’re an academic scientist like Dr. Montgomery, or like me, you’ll know that career advancement usually depends more than we might like on various metrics that attempt to quantify scientific achievement and impact – things like numbers of papers published, number of graduate students supervised, number of undergraduate courses taught, even the dreaded H-index.

"The alternative Montgomery offers is that of rejecting these externally imposed metrics in favour of your own – or at least, supplementing them with your own. She describes her own practice of defining something she calls the “B-index” (for Beronda), which is a set of personal goals or criteria she then uses in self-assessments – and that she advocates for as she goes through more formal assessments in her career."

🎧 Listening

​Interview with Editor-in-Chief of Nature Magdalena Skipper – SSP’s Early Career Development Podcast​
In this interview, Magdalena Skipper shares how the beauty of being an ​editor​ is that you stay connected to science and the research ecosystem, but with a broader focus that lets you stand right behind researchers and "look over their shoulder" as they make discoveries and develop solutions. Her words so accurately describe one reason why I love what I do.

🎓 Training

​CME Writing Success Formula​ – April 23, 2025 @ 10 am PT
If you’re curious about writing in continuing medical education (CME), CME guru Alex Howson is hosting a free 1-hour live workshop designed to help you launch your CME writing journey with clarity, confidence, and purpose. In this hands-on session, Alex will walk you through the four foundational pillars of a successful freelance CME writing business: craft, knowledge, business, and wellbeing.

📆 Upcoming in the Redwood Ink Academy

​Writing Feedback Lab​ – April 23, 2025
During writing feedback labs, members of the Redwood Ink Academy can get feedback on their writing from me and other members of the community. In this month's Writing Feedback Lab, we will review the Discussion section of one of our member's research manuscripts. You must be enrolled in ​​​Scientific Writing Simplified​​​ to join.

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Asymptotic Editing, Copying Tables, and the Pressure for Perfection

How do you know when you are done editing?

I get asked this question a lot. And I get it. Editing is an iterative process that can feel like an endless path to an unattainable destination of perfection.

I recently heard someone describe this process mathematically. And if you know a little about me, I'm a former math nerd turned word nerd, so I'm all for a math analogy related to writing.

Editing is asymptotic. (I have to give credit to my friend Leslie for this one. Thanks, Leslie!)

In case you're not a math nerd like me, an ​asymptote​ continuously approaches a specific value as a variable tends toward a limit, often infinity, without ever actually reaching it. In other words, as you change the variable (edit the text), the line get closer and closer to the desired result (the "perfect" draft) but never actually reaches it.

That analogy is a great way to describe the editing process. No matter how many changes you make, perfection is unattainable.

But if you cannot reach perfection, how do you know when you are done editing?

For me, I know that I'm done when the changes I make aren't really improving the writing. They might make things different, but not better.

How about you? How do you know when you are done editing? Hit reply and let me know.

Now onto this week's round-up...

💌 Round-up

👓 Reading

​Writing for Greater Impact: How to Improve Readability​
Readability is not just for the general public. It's for everyone, including experts. (If you're skeptical, ​check out my free masterclass​.) In the article, Nature Portfolio’s expert trainer Dr. Jeffrey Robens shares fantastic strategies for how to improve the readability of your writing for all readers.

...Oh, and if you want to even more strategies, check out my ​Scientific Writing Simplified​ course inside the Redwood Ink Academy.

​Perfection Under Pressure​
I recently downloaded this free ebook from Draftsmith. The book is packed with "real-world strategies top editors, writers, and translators use to juggle deadlines, maintain excellence, and stay sane in an industry obsessed with perfection." I highly recommend checking it out.

🧰 Tools

​Excel trick for copying printed tables​
Have you ever had a table in a printed document or online that you needed to put into Excel? Rather than manually create every cell of that table, you can use a function in Excel to create the table for you. This is a great time saver and helps you avoid inputting errors.

🎓 Training

​Finding the Freelance Clients You Deserve​ – The Mighty Marketer
In this 7-week online course + personal coaching with Lori De Milto, you can discover exactly how to get the steady, high-paying clients you deserve. Lori recently gave me some marketing tips that were outstanding, so I know that if you are a freelancer, this is an opportunity you won't want to miss.

💬 Quote

"Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence." –Vince Lombardi

📆 Upcoming in the Redwood Ink Academy

Writing Journal Club – April 16, 2025 In this spin on the classic journal club, we discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the writing in manuscripts, grant proposals, and other documents. Next week, we'll continue our manuscript series by discussing the results section of a research manuscript. You must be enrolled in ​​Scientific Writing Simplified​​ to join.

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Persuasion Consistency, Stealth Corrections, and Book Printing

Persuasion is an important part of scientific and medical writing. You want to write in a way that supports the ​three pillars of persuasion​ so that you can motivate readers to publish, fund, cite, and otherwise recognize your work.

But is persuasion about intensity or consistency?

I recently read an ​Instagram post​ with the following message:

"You throw a bucket of water on a rock and it doesn't do anything. You let a drop of water fall onto a rock every day and it creates a hole.

Consistency beats intensity.

Although the post was referring to goal setting, I think this same concept applies to persuasion.

When you intensely "pour a bucket" of promotional words into the text, persuasion surges on occasion and feels forced and like hype.

But when you consistently use strong verbs and well-framed arguments, persuasion permeates the entire document and feels natural and real.

I think this consistency is a much stronger way to show confidence without being pretentious, and to gently—but powerfully—motivate readers to take action.

So when it comes to persuasion, I believe that consistency beats intensity.

What do you think?

Now onto this week's round-up...

💌 Round-up

📆 Upcoming in the Redwood Ink Academy

Mastermind Calls
Next week is mastermind week, when you can join a small group of fellow members in your career path for a live Zoom conversation, Q&A, and hot seats. These calls are great opportunities for collectively brainstorming ways to tackle writing challenges. You must be enrolled in ​Scientific Writing Simplified​ to join.

...Oh, and if you're not sure if Scientific Writing Simplified is for you, ​check out this free masterclass​.

👓 Reading

​The Existence of Stealth Corrections in Scientific Literature—A Threat to Scientific Integrity​
"The stealth corrections presented in this paper demonstrate a fundamental and mostly ignored problem in the scientific literature. Correct documentation and transparency are of the utmost importance to uphold scientific integrity and the trustworthiness of science. Post-publication changes need to be clear for readers to understand if, and why, changes have been made."

​Author fees and waivers​ – Committee on Publication Ethics
"Scholarly journals may charge a variety of author fees, such as page charges, colour charges, editing, peer review, or article improvement fees, submission fees, fees for uploading supplementary files, and (open access) article processing charges, also called article publishing (or publication) charges (APCs). Journals should have clear policies in place to deal with direct or indirect conflicts of interest arising from charging author fees, including policies on how and when fees are disclosed, applied, and administered."

🖥️ Watching

​How books are printed​
Have you ever wondered what the process of book printing looks like? This Instragram post shares an inside look into a machine that prints thousands of books every day.

💬 Quote

“In the short term, you are as good as your intensity. In the long term, you are only as good as your consistency.” – Shane Parrish

💭 Thoughts

Even the best writers need editors. Olympians have coaches. CEOs have mentors. Leaders have advisors. An editor will help you become the best writer you can be.

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal