Interlude: Typos, Timeshielding, and the Decline of Writing

Last week, someone replied to my newsletter to let me know that there was a typo. And this isn’t the first time a typo appeared in one of my newsletters.

When this happens, I tend to oscillate between two thoughts.

First, I feel so grateful that someone reached out to point out the typo so that I can fix it where I can (thank you, Jackie!).

Second, I feel embarrassed and, frankly, disappointed in myself.

Because I’m an editor, I tend to believe that there is lot less room for typos and other minor errors in my writing. I have the perception that people expect perfection from me when it comes to writing. And for a long time, I expected that of myself.

But I’ve tried to shift my mindset from striving for perfection to striving for excellence. And that has helped me learn to acknowledge the embarrassment and move past the disappointment.

And last week, I had a third thought. I recognized that the typo showed readers that the text was written by a human rather than AI. In a world where AI is changing how we write, I think that typos can remind us that there is another human on the other side of the message. And knowing that can help to keep us connected.

So the next time you spot a typo in something you’ve read, I hope you’ll see it as a sign that a real person was on the other end of the message.

Thank you, as always, for reading—typos and all.

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

Round-up

Reading

​I’m Begging You: Never Write With A.I.​
”The problem with writing with A.I. is that it’s mentally enfeebling — an escalator toward a result when you really need to make a daily habit of taking the stairs. As it becomes ubiquitous, it undermines not only our individual ability to write but also a society’s collective ability to reason, a culture’s inner capacity to create and everyone’s reason to care. We’re already reckoning with the well-documented decline of reading; A.I. is accelerating the decline of writing, ushering us further into what The Atlantic’s Rose Horowitch calls our ‘postliterate age.’”

“What, uniquely, does writing do? It compels thought. It compels thinking in ways that silent contemplation or spoken language rarely can. It compels us to subject our thinking to the effort of articulation, the rigor of grammar, the tests of intelligibility and coherence, the inspection of others. In doing so, it also enjoins us to be clear, logical, accurate — and accountable.”

“We become better writers by the constant effort that mundane writing demands. We become better thinkers by investing into that writing a degree of attention we’d never give it if we relinquished the task to A.I. We become more creative when we learn how to put a personal stamp even on routine things, making them unmistakably our own.”

​Beyond Time Management​
”That’s why I practice what I call timeshielding. At the beginning of each week, I protect time for my key priorities. . . Timeshielding means protecting blocks of time for what matters to you without assigning them a specific task list. . . This differs from timeboxing, where you assign a specific task to a fixed period. This structure gives your priorities a place in your calendar while leaving enough flexibility to respond to your energy and attention in the moment.”

Watching

​What happens when you talk to AI?​
”An AI model writes one word at a time, but it doesn't think one word at a time. Jane from Anthropic’s user experience team breaks down the prediction process behind every AI output, and how to better interpret the responses you get back.”

Tools

​Alfred​
I’ve been using the Alfred app for nearly a decade. This app works a lot like Spotlight on a Mac (but better!) and helps me quickly open files without digging into nested folders on my computer, search the web, complete quick calculations, and more. The app has many other features that I have not explored (yet!), so if you use Alfred in other ways, hit reply and let me know. I’d love to learn how I can maximize this tool.

Quote

“Part of what is happening when you spend 7 hours reading a book, is you spend 7 hours with your mind on the topics in the book, grappling with them, drawing connections, having thoughts you would not otherwise have had. And so without that process of grappling, without those hours inside that book, it doesn’t get inside you. It doesn’t impress itself upon you. It doesn’t change you. What reading and writing and processing information is supposed to do is change you.” –Ezra Klein

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Creating Expertise, Learning from Within, and Undermining Critical Thinking

Why is the ​Discussion​ section of a research manuscript so hard to write? I’ve heard this question a lot over the years.

One reason is structural. Unlike other sections of a research manuscript, the Discussion has a more open-ended structure, which means you have to figure out how to best structure the text.

But the deeper reason is that the Discussion is where most of the critical thinking happens. You have to not only interpret the findings but also describe how they fit into the rapidly expanding literature—which means you need to think carefully about how your findings confirm, contradict, or otherwise build on what is already known.

This is hard work. Not because the writing itself is hard, but because the thinking needed to write is hard.

But what if that hard work is what actually makes you the expert? What if writing a strong Discussion section helps to create your expertise?

I believe that relationship between writing and thinking in the Discussion section is an important part of what expands your expertise.

So the next time you sit down to write your Discussion section, notice the friction you feel. That friction means that your expertise is expanding.

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

Round-up

Featured

​How To Learn in a World of Information Overload​
Last year, I had the honor of supporting a few remarkable researchers with their TEDxNewEngland (formerly TEDxCambridge) talks. In this talk, Tania Lombrozo, a professor of psychology at Princeton University, shares how learning doesn’t start with information outside our heads, but rather from within. She reveals how asking the right questions and transforming the information we already have can make us better learners in an age of information overload.

Reading

​Will the widespread use of large language models in scientific writing undermine scientists’ critical thinking?​
”Science is one of the pinnacles of human culture and writing is its main means of expression. Scientific writing is not only a vehicle for reporting outcomes once the “real” science is done, but a constitutive element of scientific thinking and practice, shaping how ideas are generated and how research is conducted, evaluated, and made publicly accountable. We need to maintain the integrity of scientific writing and continue to cultivate it.”

​NIH Is Replacing Letters of Support with Letters of Collaboration to Reduce Administrative Burden​
”With the implementation of Forms J in Fiscal Year 2027, the NIH will no longer allow letters of support but will instead require letters of collaboration. . . Letters of collaboration should be limited to stating the intent to collaborate or provide material support as described in the application and should not contain endorsements or additional information about or evaluations of the proposed project. An individual letter of collaboration must not exceed 100 words.”

​Some Wikipedia citations to retracted papers persist for years, study finds​
”The team found that while many corrections occurred swiftly, the median time for a correction was 3.68 years. . . Physical science citations are corrected the fastest, with a median correction time of 228 days. Corrections to life sciences and health sciences citations take significantly longer, with median correction times of 2,720 days and 1,846 days, ​respectively​.”

Quote

“What I want to say is that in a certain sense, while the novelist is creating a novel, he is simultaneously being created by the novel as well.” –Haruki Murakami

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Human at the Helm, Reading Like a Scientist, and Bad First Attempts

When it comes to using AI tools for writing, we often hear the phrase “human in the loop.” This phrase reminds us that when we are using AI tools, we are accountable for the writing and need to be part of the process that involves these tools.

But after reading a comment from Afia K. on one of my ​LinkedIn posts​, I think that “human in the loop” falls short.

Instead, I think we need to use “human at the helm.”

We are not just part of the process. We are responsible for the process. We are not a contributor. We are the leader.

AI tools might help you write faster. But they can’t be accountable for what’s written. That responsibility stays with us.

So the next time you sit down to write with an AI tool, remember that you are the human at the helm.

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

Round-up

Reading

​How to Read Like a Scientist​
In this article, the author shares how you can benefit from reading like a scientist, even if what you’re reading has nothing to do with science. She shares three practices you can use to approach any kind of reading: formulate a hypothesis to help you learn, exercise critical thinking using dialogue, and share what you learned in your own words.

​Rekindling the flame: Back to roots on paper mills​
"...we are reviving the original COPE Paper mill Working Group...The group’s first project will be a companion toolkit to COPE’s existing systematic manipulation guidelines. . . What the working group [also] offers is something harder to replicate elsewhere: a space to pool collective knowledge and experience, and to reconnect with a community that has been navigating these challenges in different ways."

Listening

​Accent-uate, Don't Compensate: Why Clarity Matters More Than Perfection​
In this episode of the Think Fast, Talk Smart podcast, Peter Novak shares "how accent bias influences the workplace, why clarity matters more than sounding 'native,' and the practical techniques anyone can use to communicate with greater confidence and impact."

Watching

​Just Write the Bad Sentence
In this Instagram Reel, Pixar Director Andrew Stanton shares how writing is really rewriting, and you need to just write the bad first sentence so that you can stop wasting time and get to the good sentence.

Quote

"Your first attempt might not be very good, but nobody's early work is good. There will always be a gap between where you are and where you want to be. And the bridge between that gap is courage. The courage to look foolish in the beginning. The courage to show up again when your early work is criticized. The courage to look yourself in the mirror and say, 'I realize I'm not good enough yet, but the only way to get better is to keep working on it.'” –James Clear

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: AI “Tells,” Human Oversight, and Becoming Irreplaceable

Lately, I’ve seen a lot of articles and posts about AI “tells.” And you might be avoiding them because you fear your writing will be perceived as generated by AI.

The em dash.

Buzzwords like “delve,” “practical,” or “quietly.”

Triplet framing, this-not-that rhythm, or the same structure repeated again and again.

I could zoom in and argue that AI generates text based on predictions, which means it’s essentially mimicking writing patterns that already exist.

I could zoom out a bit and argue that using AI to generate text isn’t a problem. It’s that AI-generated text can be awkward, inaccurate, imprecise, or incorrect.

But when I zoom out even more, I see a bigger signal: a desire for speed vs a desire for connection.

We might want to produce with the speed and ease of AI-generated text, but we want to read with the quality and connection of something crafted by humans.

So to me, using AI to generate text isn’t bad. AI can be a helpful tool to inspire your writing.

But you need to keep readers in mind so that you can ensure your writing connects with them.

So don’t worry about using the em dash or other “tells” in your writing. Instead, ask yourself whether the person on the other end feels like you were thinking of them when you wrote it.

Round-up

Reading

​AI in scientific publishing: Slower, worse, and more expensive​
”Rigorous human checking of AI-generated research papers is creating bottlenecks as publishers strive to maintain the integrity of the scientific record. The challenge is requiring even more human effort, making the whole endeavor slower and more expensive. . .The rate of research submissions at Science and other journals is increasing because conducting research and producing papers are accelerating. But because more papers contain more AI-generated errors, greater human oversight is required to check the findings.”

​Publishing Without Borders: Advancing Equity in Scientific Authorship​
”Financial barriers are only the tip of the iceberg. Researchers in LMICs often grapple with deeper systemic challenges, including inadequate mentorship, limited experience in academic writing, unfamiliarity with editorial norms, and restricted access to professional networks. These structural inequities frequently result in under-prepared manuscripts and higher rejection rates.”

​Becoming Irreplaceable​
In this article, Anne-Laure Le Cunff, author of Tiny Experiments, shares why she thinks humans could be replaced as a function but not as a life. She also describes how you can be harder to substitute if you have the Triple T (Talent, Taste, and Trust).

Listening

​A Journal Editor’s Perspective on AI – In Plain Cite Podcast​
In this episode, Raja-Elie Abdulnour, Editor-in-Chief of NEJM Clinician and Chief Clinical Innovation Officer at NEJM Group, discusses “how AI is being used across editorial workflows, why disclosure and accountability matter, and what role editors play in safeguarding scientific honesty and rigor.”

Watching

​Letting AI speak for you​
In this Instagram Reel, writer Dave Eggers shares his concern about how the younger generation could silence their own unique voices by letting AI speak for them. I think his words are important for all generations as people continue to use AI tools for writing. ​Listen to the full podcast episode​.

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Conveyor Belts, Evidence-Based Trust, and Burrito Paragraphs

You might have noticed that I haven’t posted a new YouTube video for a few weeks. I haven’t dropped the ball. But I have hit pause.

A few weeks ago, on a filming day, I had a family emergency (everyone’s okay). Because I create and edit all of the videos myself, I know how many hours go into producing them, and I knew I wouldn’t be able to post one that week. I was disappointed—and I felt like I was letting you down.

But there was silver lining: it forced me off the conveyor belt of constantly “producing.”

And once the conveyor belt stopped, I realized how easily we can fall into the trap of “do more.” I was already writing this weekly newsletter, posting daily on LinkedIn, and creating weekly YouTube videos. On top of that, people were asking me to create YouTube shorts, post carousels and videos for LinkedIn, and even start an Instagram account.

All of this takes time and energy. And as much as I want to support you in every way I can, chasing “more” meant less quality, less creativity, and less value for you. And that’s what really felt like I was letting you down.

So I stopped the conveyor belt for a few weeks to spend some real time thinking about how to bring you the most value. I’m not sure yet whether I’ll turn it back on as is, or build something different. But I do know this: you’ll be the reason for whatever comes next.

Till then, I’ll still be sending this newsletter every week and posting on LinkedIn. And I’ll share what’s next soon.

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

Round-up

Reading

Medical students are using a popular research tool to pump out misleading studies​
“…the combination of inexperienced users and TriNetX’s push-button analysis tools can lead to shoddy publications, which often do not correct for potential biases that can make treatments appear more effective than they are. And because the data can be analyzed so quickly, users can easily cherry-pick positive results for publication, a practice known as p-hacking.”

​Controlling AI hallucinations: Building evidence-based trust in clinical and scientific workflows​
”In a 2025 cross-industry survey, 44% of organisations reported experiencing negative consequences from generative AI use, with average financial losses of $4.4 million per incident. In the pharmaceutical and healthcare sectors, where precision is paramount and human lives are directly impacted, these consequences manifest most dangerously as AI hallucinations, fabricated or inaccurate outputs presented with unwarranted confidence.”

​A call for clarity: a unified checklist for reporting use of large language models in writing scientific manuscripts​
”We propose a structured framework to help authors and journal editors and editorial offices distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable uses of generative AI in scientific publications. To operationalize this, we introduce a novel online reporting tool that guides authors in documenting AI use and generates a standardized, citable disclosure statement to ensure transparency and accountability.”

Watching

​How to Write Simply
In this Instagram post, Harry Dry shares how a good paragraph is like a burrito, how good sentences don’t talk awkwardly to each other, and why he writes four or five versions of paragraphs while editing.

Quote

“Attention isn't free. It's the most valuable thing you spend.” –Shane Parrish

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Learning Experiments, Strategic Co-Authorship, and Outsourcing Your Thinking

I’ve talked to a lot of researchers who struggle to stick to a writing schedule. Maybe that sounds familiar.

The reasons for this struggle are often external (meetings, students, clinical duties) or internal (a lack of motivation, direction, or willpower). But no matter the reason, it’s easy to feel like you’ve failed for not sticking to the schedule.

That feeling is real—and also not helpful. Instead of seeing these obstacles as failures, you can treat them like experiments. Put on your scientist hat and analyze the data. Notice where things worked and where they didn’t.

Say you planned to write the Introduction today and didn’t. Instead of thinking, “I failed,” try “What got in the way, and what could I do differently next time?”

Then you can learn from what didn’t work, so that the next time that obstacle shows up, you’ll know what to do.

So the next time you miss your writing goal, resist the urge to call it a failure. Call it a data point. You’re already trained to run experiments and learn from data. Give yourself the same grace with your writing.

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

Round-up

Featured

​Is AI Making Us Boring?
​Last year, I had the honor of supporting a few remarkable researchers with their TEDxNewEngland (formerly TEDxCambridge) talks. In this talk, Sandra Matz, a computational social scientist at Columbia Business School, shares what really happens when we let algorithms decide for us. She reveals how algorithms limit what you see, try, and ultimately become. And she shares how you can use AI to fuel your curiosity and expand your world.

Reading

​How to think in writing: the thought behind the thought​
I had a hard time pulling just one quote from this piece. If you have a few minutes, it’s really worth reading the whole piece.

“When I write, I get to observe the transition from this fluid mode of thinking to the rigid. As I type, I’m often in a fluid mode—writing at the speed of thought. I feel confident about what I’m saying. But as soon as I stop, the thoughts solidify, rigid on the page, and, as I read what I’ve written, I see cracks spreading through my ideas. What seemed right in my head fell to pieces on the page.

”Seeing your ideas crumble can be a frustrating experience, but it is the point if you are writing to think. You want it to break. It is in the cracks the light shines in.”

​Beyond genuine collaboration: the rise of strategic co-authorship in contemporary academic publishing​
I had a hard time pulling just one quote from this piece, too. If you have a few minutes, I highly recommend reading the entire article.

”Most fundamentally, the academic community must acknowledge that current incentive structures systematically undermine the principle that authorship should reflect genuine intellectual contribution. The integrity of science depends on honest attribution of scholarly work. When publication counts matter more than contribution quality, when metrics can be gamed through strategic arrangements, and when power imbalances enable exploitation, the scientific enterprise loses its foundational commitment to truth and accountability.”

​Accountability or acknowledgment? Untangling authorship and medical writing support in scientific publishing​
”All major guidelines concur that medical writers should be listed as authors if and only if they fulfill the same substantive criteria expected of any other author, including significant intellectual contribution to the design or analysis, involvement in drafting or critically reviewing the content, approval of the final version, and accountability of the research work.”

Watching

​Don’t outsource your thinking​
”We’re moving into this time where we’re gonna sub out writing to AI… But what is lost is what comes out of the process. What is lost is a way of thinking… And it’s the fun part too. It really is what you learn in the course of a day spent writing. Things you didn’t know. Ideas that you didn’t expect… And to sub that out to a machine seems like to deprive yourself of something really important.”

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Mise En Place, Paying Peer Reviewers, and Communicating at Work

If you’d been around here for a while, then you know I’m a big fan of creating outlines for writing manuscripts and grants. And not just basic, structural outlines, but detailed, line-by-line outlines.

To me, outlines are part of your “mise en place.” If you’re not familiar with this term, it’s a French culinary phrase that means “putting into place.” In other words, you are preparing and organizing your ingredients before cooking. And a similar concept applies to writing.

Here are the 4 parts of mise en place:

Part 1: Check the recipe, or check the author instructions. To know what to expect, chefs need to know what the dish is supposed to be before they start cooking, and you need to know what the journal or funding agency wants before you start writing.

Part 2: Collect your kitchen tools, or collect your writing tools. To keep momentum, chefs keep all the needed cooking tools within reach, and you can keep all the needed writing tools (eg, laptop, notebook, reference materials) within reach.

Part 3: Gather your ingredients, or gather your content. To avoid a last minute scramble, chefs need to ensure they have everything they need for the recipe, and you need to ensure you have everything you need for your content (eg, data, ideas, text snippets).

Part 4: Complete basic prep work, or complete basic prep writing. To streamline the process, chefs need to prepare their ingredients so they are ready to add at the right time in the recipe, and you need to prepare your content (eg, create an outline) so it is ready to add at the right time in the document.

For chefs, this process keeps a kitchen running smoothly so they can work calmly and save time and effort. For you, this process helps keep your writing running smoothly so you can work calmly and save time and effort.

All 4 parts matter. But in my experience, Part 4 is the step that writers skip most often. And that makes some sense—outlining can feel like an extra, time-intensive step when you’re already pressed for time.

But that time investment up front saves you so much time later through a clearer direction for your writing and fewer rounds of revisions.

So the next time you sit down to write, get your mise en place ready. A little extra work up front means a smoother writing process now, and more time and energy as the deadline gets closer.

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

Round-up

Reading

Why paying peer reviewers works, according to a journal’s editor-in-chief​
”Paying reviewers not only led to faster first editorial decisions — an average of 5.5 working days, down from nearly 38 for unpaid reviews (see ‘Paying peer reviewers speeds up editorial decision time) — but review quality, as judged by handling editors on the basis of helpfulness in making an editorial decision, went up…”

​Incorporation of the National Institute of Health (NIH) sex as a biological variable policy by R01 grant awardees​
“To assess how well this policy is being implemented, 574 NIH-funded publications from 2017–2024 were reviewed. Most studies (61%) included both sexes, particularly those involving humans. However, fewer than half (44%) analyzed results by sex, even when both sexes were included. Sex-based analyses were more common in human studies and in articles with women as first or senior authors. These findings show progress in sex inclusion, but many studies still fail to compare results by sex.“

​PRISMA-Children and Adolescents (PRISMA-C) 2026 extension statement and explanation: enhancing the reporting and utility of systematic reviews of interventions in paediatrics​
“To enable reporting the essential detail on treatment effects related to age and developmental stages in these systematic reviews, an extension to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was developed: PRISMA-Children and Adolescents (PRISMA-C) 2026. The extension comprises a checklist, explanations, and examples of good reporting for seven main checklist items and four abstract items, and present paediatric examples of good reporting for 10 PRISMA 2020 items to which the ontogeny statement applies.”

Watching

​How you communicate at work
​This reel is a clip from a TED Talk by leadership expert Melissa Mikus. In this clip, she shares how miscommunication at work may be rooted in different communication styles, and that letting your team know how you work best can lead to better performance.

Quote

“If you do enough planning before you start to write, there's no way you can have writer's block. I do a complete chapter by chapter outline.” –R.L. Stine

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Keystone Habits, Scientific Ghosts, and Authorship Perceptions

I recently saw a ​reel​ that reminded me how some habits are more powerful than others.

You may have noticed this in your own life. You change one small thing, and somehow everything else begins to shift. These are keystone habits: small changes that set off a chain reaction far greater than the initial change would suggest.

You might be wondering how to find your keystone habits. It starts with a simple question: What kind of change seems irrationally scary to you?

Not just uncomfortable—irrationally, unexplainably scary. The kind of discomfort that stirs up an emotional response you can't quite justify. That discomfort isn't a reason to back away. It's actually a sign to lean in. Because that thing may be a keystone habit for you.

Let's consider writing. I've met many researchers who feel a lot of discomfort with the idea of writing. Not just because writing is challenging, or because formal training in writing is rarely part of graduate education. But because they don't see themselves as writers. And that identity gap can hold them back.

But when a researcher pushes past that discomfort to write regularly, they can begin to recognize what was already true: they are professional writers. One keystone habit leads to a chain reaction that changes how they see themselves.

So I'll leave you with the same question: What kind of change seems irrationally scary to you? That fear may be pointing you toward the one thing worth leaning into.

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

Round-up

Reading

​Scientific ghosts: Life after retraction – A case of Nature Index journals​
"Scientific paper retractions do not terminate their academic impact; rather, they create a ghost-like existence in the scientific literature. This study examines the ‘afterlife’ of retracted articles in high-prestige journals. Accordingly, it analyses the citation patterns after retraction of 994 retracted articles from Nature Index journals and their 21,047 citations. The findings indicate that 93.9% of these articles continued receiving citations post-retraction, with 47.86% of citations being neutral and 39.79% carrying a positive tone."

​Cite unseen: when AI hallucinates scientific articles​
"Luckily, one solution is to use a tool we’ve already developed: our skepticism. Our assumption that information is likely wrong, until we see reasonable evidence otherwise, is part of what makes us successful as scientists. Now, we just need to apply it to citations as well."

​Faculty-student differences in authorship perceptions before and after authorship ethics interventions​
"We further assess changes in authorship norms and ethical perceptions through a follow-up survey after a three-year effort to improve authorship ethics on our campus, which included training on ethical authorship practices and adoption of a formal institutional authorship policy. The results show notable shifts in researchers’ awareness, expectations, and attitudes toward authorship ethics and responsibilities. This suggests proactive education and policymaking can promote integrity in collaborative scholarly work and recalibrate local norms."

Watching

​How the best presenters use their slides​
"Bad presenters use their slide decks like a script, meaning they click to the next slide and then talk about what’s on it. But great presenters use their slides to emphasize important information after they’ve already said it, which is much harder, but much more impactful."

Quote

“This is the real power of habit: the insight that your habits are what you choose them to be.” –Charles Duhigg, The Power of Habit

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: 200th Edition, Most Persuasive Word, and AI Killing Non-Fiction

This newsletter is extra special. Why?

It's the 200th 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.

If you want to explore previous editions, you can ​browse the archive​.

And if you have just 2 minutes, I'd love to know what you think about the newsletter. You can share your thoughts by ​clicking here​.

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

Featured

​The One Word Every Medical Communicator Needs for Persuasive Writing​
I'm thrilled to share my latest publication in the AMWA Journal! In the article, I talk about how promotional language has been linked to greater success—and how it also comes with the risks of overhyping, misreporting, or misrepresenting information. Then I share one of the most powerful persuasive tools you can use: the word because.

From My Desk

​How to Disclose Your Use of AI in Research Manuscripts​
I was recently working with a journal to help them develop an AI disclosure policy, and we talked a lot about the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors guidelines and how much authors need to disclose. In this article, I share why disclosure matters, what you do (and do not) need to disclose, and where to include this information in your manuscripts.

Reading

Has AI Already Killed How-To Nonfiction? Sales Trends, My Personal Data, and What It Might Mean for the Future​
"For my books, at least, the secret sauce is in the sequencing—the logical ordering of things—plus the deeply personal stories. . .that actually catalyze people to change long-standing habits."

". . . the market for information is collapsing into the chatbot. The market for transformation—for sitting with one mind, at length, on a subject it has bled for—might just get smaller, weirder, and more interesting. I’d bet on it."

Training

​Summer Portfolio Camp​
Are you a CME/CE writer who wants to build a portfolio piece without second-guessing what to write, whether it “counts,” or what clients want? Join this guided sprint with Alex Howson to create (or transform) a strong portfolio sample you can confidently share.

Quote

“What is written without effort is in general read without pleasure.” —Samuel Johnson

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Shiny "Shoulds," Page Limits, and Language Clarity

I have a confession. I have a case of shiny object syndrome.

Since I started Redwood Ink, I've had so many ideas for resources—guides, tools, courses—to help scientists, clinicians, and the writers and editors who support them.

In a way, I feel like my mind is spiraling with shiny "shoulds."

• Should I start a podcast?

• Should I write that article that's been sitting in the back of my mind?

• Should I build the course I've been thinking about for the past 5 years?

At times, it feels overwhelming, and I'm not sure what to create first. So I hesitate...or impulsively create what I'm envisioning.

But I also wonder, is shiny object syndrome really a problem? Or is it a signal of curiosity, creativity, and a scientific mindset wired for inquiry?

Maybe the goal isn't to stop the ideas, or to act on all of them at once. Maybe it's about capturing them, tending to them, and trusting that the right ones will rise when the time is right.

I suspect I'm not the only one with a running list of shiny "shoulds"—whether it's a proposal idea, an unwritten paper, or a career pivot you keep deferring.

What's your most recent shiny "should?" Hit reply—I read every one.

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

Round-up

From My Desk

​Over the Page Limit? Try These 5 Writing Strategies​
Page limits are a different challenge than word or character limits—and they require different strategies. In this video, I share 5 specific strategies you can use to condense your text to meet a page limit.

Reading

​Fabricated citations: an audit across 2·5 million biomedical papers​
"We present findings from a reference-integrity audit of 2·5 million biomedical papers spanning 3 years, showing that fabricated references are embedded in the peer-reviewed literature at scale, and that the rate of fabrication is accelerating.. . . The fabricated references we identified were not obviously defective: topically specific, correctly formatted, attributed to real researchers, and beared plausible publication dates.“

​What do editors of medical journals think about opportunities and barriers to advancement in the publication of plain language summaries? A qualitative analysis​
"While most editors were supportive of, or invested in, publishing PLSs [plain language summaries], practical barriers to their implementation were consistently reported. These included barriers related to resourcing, organisational commitment from publishers, difficulties assessing PLS readership and reach, and a lack of clearly defined roles, commitment and relevant skills among authors, peer-reviewers and editors. The future of PLSs was considered important in terms of adapting to emerging technologies such as AI, making use of innovative formats for PLSs to cater for a more diverse audience, and acknowledging some unexplored distribution channels including via consumer groups and social media.”

Listening

​The case for language clarity, with Iva Cheung​
In this episode of the Grammar Girl podcast, Iva Cheung, a plain language expert, describes what plain language actually means and why it matters for health care, legal rights, and everyday communication—even for expert audiences. Then she explores cognitive load theory, the expertise reversal effect, and why most writers skip user testing.

Quote

"One never notices what has been done; one can only see what remains to be done." – Marie Curie

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Learning from Failure, Methods Sections, and AI Tells

I've never really been into video games. But I've enjoyed a game of Super Mario or Sonic a time or two. And I think these games can teach us something important about failure.

When you play for the first time, you inevitably fall into a pit and lose a "life." And although you might feel disappointed, you don't just toss the controller and vow never to play again. You think about what you could have done differently, and you try again. And you often feel more energized than before.

The failure becomes data that you can learn from and energy you can get momentum from.

In science and medicine, failure carries more weight than falling into a fictional pit. Bad reviews, rejected papers, and unscored grants can feel deeply discouraging, especially when the stakes are high and you're so invested in the work.

But these failures are not verdicts. They're lessons.

You don't win or lose. You win or learn.

So when you face a failure, think about what you can learn from it. And use those lessons to fuel your next draft, your next submission, or your next step.

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

Round-up

Featured

​Know Your Tools, Know Your Value: An Editor's Take on AI​
I was delighted to be invited to join the AI Rounds podcast to talk about my upcoming session at the Early Career Medical Writers Summit. During our discussion, I shared what I've learned about large language models and their limitations, and what I believe humans bring—and will continue to bring—to the writing, even when they are using AI tools to support their work.

From My Desk

5 Methods Section Mistakes That Could Get Your Paper Rejected​
The Methods section might be the easiest section of a research manuscript to write, but I've noticed that clinical researchers often overlook a few key elements of this section. In this video, I share five things that you don’t want to overlook in the Methods section of your clinical research manuscript.

Reading

​The Biggest Tell That Something Was Written by AI​
"The problem is that the efficiency and frictionlessness that make AI appealing to writers are the same qualities that make it feel untrustworthy to readers. And readers are right not to trust it. No matter how much we may tell ourselves that AI is just a tool like spell-check, it isn’t. When we use AI to flesh out ideas, we lose the most important part of the writing process: thinking."

"All of these sentences are grammatically perfect. They also make no sense. And all substantially AI-generated writing is like this, under the hood."

​Prompt injection in manuscripts: exploiting loopholes or crossing ethical lines?
"The key findings reveal significant ethical concerns regarding the use of AI in peer review processes, particularly when AI’s role is either disclosed or not disclosed. When AI use was explicitly stated, 72% of participants viewed Prompt Injection in Manuscripts as academic misconduct, whereas only 9% of respondents considered it unethical when AI involvement was not disclosed. The study also highlighted broad support for increased AI transparency in academic publishing, with 80% of participants endorsing clearer guidelines for AI use in peer review."

Quote

“Success is stumbling from failure to failure with no loss of enthusiasm.” – Winston Churchill

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Invisible Thinking, Writing Motivation, and Private Struggles

I really enjoy getting replies to my newsletters. Last week, Stephanie N. shared something that struck me.

She said that the things you share in your writing are the only parts of your thought process that readers have access to.

What she said reminds me of the curse of knowledge—when we unknowingly and unintentionally assume our readers know what we know (or think what we think). And this curse can get in the way of authors fully capturing their thinking in their writing.

But I love how Stephanie reframes the idea. It's less about what you know, and more about what your reader can actually follow.

So this week, I encourage you to reread a paragraph of a draft you are working on, and ask yourself: What am I assuming my reader already knows here?

You might be surprised by how much invisible thinking you can bring to the surface—and how much stronger your writing becomes when you do.

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

Round-up

Featured

​How music influences your daydreams​
Last year, I had the honor of supporting a few remarkable researchers with their TEDxNewEngland (formerly TEDxCambridge) talks. In this talk, Elizabeth Margulis, a professor at Princeton University, draws on neuroscience and cross-cultural research to show how music "hacks" spontaneous thought by activating patterns of associations we've learned implicitly over a lifetime.

From My Desk

​Stop Waiting for Writing Motivation—Do This Instead​
When you need to write, motivation might feel impossible to access. But here’s what most people get wrong: you can’t find motivation, you have to activate it. In this video, I share three strategies to activate your motivation easier and faster when you don’t feel like writing.

Reading

​Everyone else’s kitchen is tidier than mine – and writing is hard​
"I saw the messiness of my own struggles to write, because I was there. I saw only completed drafts from my colleagues and mentors. Just as their baking messes happen only when I’m not in their kitchens, their writing struggles (and nearly all of them, I now understand, had them) happened in the privacy of their own offices."

Watching

​Stop Saying This When You End a Meeting
Have you ever heard someone end a meeting by saying a version of "I'm going to give you your time back"? Although I think they intend to be generous, I've often found this statement a bit off-putting. In this reel, Brené Brown shares a great alternative to this statement that better captures the generous intent.

Quote

“Writing well has everything to do with being able to read one's own work with an eye toward the unmet possibilities that are there.” –Lucy Calkins

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Memorable Writing, Power Positions, and Publish-or-Perish Culture

I've been thinking about what makes writing memorable. I suspect you have too, especially if you've ever agonized over crafting the "perfect" draft.

Some assume it comes down to persuasiveness. Others lean toward elegant prose.

Those things matter. But after years of editing and teaching scientific writing, I keep coming back to three simpler ideas—borrowed from entrepreneur Pat Flynn, who was actually talking about branding, not writing.

Is it simple? Can your readers understand the concepts without rereading the text?

Is it interesting? Does it give readers something to think about or connect with?

Is it valuable? Do readers take something useful away?

Simple + Interesting + Valuable = Memorable

None of these require fancy language. They just require thinking carefully about your readers.

I'd love to hear which of these feels hardest in your own writing. Hit reply and let me know. Your answer might just inspire a future issue.

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

Round-up

From My Desk

3 Places in Your NIH Grant Application to Leave a Lasting Impression​
Many researchers overlook the three most powerful positions in an NIH grant application. In this video, I share what those three positions are and how you can maximize their power to get reviewers just as excited about the proposed project as you.

Reading

​Buying a first author slot can cost you anywhere from $56 to $5,600​
“The market for fake authorship on a research paper has prices to match every budget, according to a new dataset compiled from thousands of advertisements on social media platforms and paper mill websites. The dataset, called BuyTheBy, is the first systematic attempt to understand the market for paper mill products…”

​Lawmakers Question Publish-or-Perish Culture of Scientific Research​
Two quotes stood out to me in this article:

“Academic careers are built on publication counts. Institutions compete on research output. The result is a publish-or-perish culture that rewards quantity over quality and creates a ready market for shortcuts when speed and quantity displace rigor or reproducibility,” he said. “What was once a straightforward process of peer review and dissemination has become a complex, commercialized marketplace with maligned incentives and bad actors willing to exploit them.”

“Science needs a reform of the publish-or-perish system, which perversely encourages and even rewards mischief and misbehavior. By relying on overly simplistic numerical metrics to tell us who is doing the best science, we dangerously conflate quantity with quality output [and] innovation and publication numbers with reliable knowledge.”

Listening

​Ask Matt Anything: Authenticity, Anxiety, and Answering Well​
"Strong communication isn’t about having the right lines ready—it’s about being present enough to respond with clarity. In the moment, it’s easy to rush, overthink, or lose your structure. But with the right tools, you can slow down, connect, and communicate with intention. In this Ask Matt Anything episode of Think Fast, Talk Smart, Matt Abrahams...outlines practical ways to manage nerves, adapt to different situations, and build communication habits that last.

Quote

“Good design is making something intelligible and memorable. Great design is making something memorable and meaningful.” – Dieter Rams

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Conversations, Research Misconduct, and the Superpower of Verbs

I'm very selective about what email lists I join. I know that when I read someone's newsletter, I'm gifting them two of my greatest assets: my time and attention.

This is one reason why I'm so grateful you're here. This newsletter exists because of you. Thank you for sharing your time and attention with me every week.

I also want you to know that this newsletter is a conversation, not a broadcast. I believe that the best ideas and connections come from genuine dialogue. If you reply, I will be at the other end.

If something here resonates, challenges you, or raises a question worth exploring, I hope you'll reach out. I read and reply to every message personally—because that's the kind of exchange I value most.

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

Round-up

From My Desk

​Want Better Scientific Writing? You Need to Read This Book​
If you're looking to sharpen your scientific and medical writing, I have just the book for you. In this video, I'll share one of my most recommended books, as well as three key takeaways that have had a lasting impact on how I write and teach others to write.

Reading

​Global reporting standard for AI disclosure in research​
". ..several organisations...have joined forces to work towards a Global Reporting Standard for AI Disclosure in Research. ...COPE is joining a group that consists of the International Science Council, the World Conferences on Research Integrity Foundation, STM and the Global Young Academy, bringing together a wide variety of voices and perspectives. This will help with developing a reporting standard that will be useful across research disciplines and for different publishing models."

​Hallucinated citations produced by generative artificial intelligence may constitute research misconduct when citations function as data in scholarly papers​
"...GenAI hallucinated citations might qualify as a provable instance of research misconduct under the U.S. federal regulations when a) the researcher uses a GenAI tool to produce hallucinated (i.e., nonexistent) citations for a research document; b) the citations function as data because they directly support research findings, as in, for example, review articles or bibliometric studies; and c) the researcher demonstrates indifference to the risk of fabrication of the data (i.e. citations) because they did not check the GenAI’s output for veracity and accuracy. Other types of problematic citations such as bibliometrically incorrect citations, or contextually inaccurate citations, are indicative of poor scholarship and irresponsible behavior, but do not qualify as research misconduct."

Listening

​The hidden superpower of verbs​
In this episode of the Grammar Girl podcast, Sarah L. Kaufman, author of Verb Your Enthusiasm, shares the power of choosing strong, dynamic verbs in your writing.

Quote

“Words are magical in the way they affect the minds of those who use them.” – Aldus Huxley

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Reading Profusely, Writer's Block, and Levels of Reading

This weekend is Mother’s Day. So naturally I’ve been thinking about my mom.

In the last decade or so of her life, she wrote a column for the local newspaper. She wrote about life in the little town I grew up in, and she infused her articles with her quirky sense of humor. (If you're curious, ​here's one article​ from the newspaper archives.)

My mom's knack for writing didn't come from a higher education. She graduated from high school and then worked as a secretary for several years before becoming a full-time homemaker.

So you might be wondering, how did she develop her writing skills?

She read, a lot.

Nearly every 2 weeks, she would visit the local library to load up on books on every topic in every genre you can imagine. She often took me and one of my brothers, and we would all walk out of the library with our arms loaded with as many books as we could carry—and they were (nearly) all for her.

She learned to write well not by taking courses and getting degrees, but by reading widely and profusely.

How then did she manage to get a regular column in the local newspaper? She wrote a few letters to the editor. And the newspaper noticed her talent.

Why am I telling you this story? Because writing well isn't necessarily about degrees and credentials. It's about committing to your craft and dedicating the time and energy to hone it—and then building the confidence to share your work.

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

Round-up

From My Desk

​5 Books to Sharpen Your Scientific and Medical Writing Skills​
Whether you're drafting your first manuscript or polishing your hundredth, having the right resources on your shelf makes all the difference. In this video, I share five essential books that are my tried-and-true recommendations for people who want to hone their scientific and medical writing skills.

Reading

​Ness Letters: Writer’s Block is Optional​
“...your brain encodes information better when you produce it yourself. . . [T]his is called the Generation Effect. A meta-analysis of 86 studies involving over 17,000 participants found that people remember material substantially better – roughly a 40% boost – when they produce it themselves than when they simply read it.”

​The Best Summary of How to Read a Book by Mortimer Adler​
“Think of these levels as reading to entertain, reading to inform, reading to understand, and reading to master. When you learned to read in elementary school, you were taught to read for entertainment. If you made it to high school and college, you learned to read to inform. This is where most people stop. But most of the value comes at the last two levels.”

Watching

​How to Improve Your Communication Skills
​In this video, Matt Abrahams and Dr. Andrew Huberman discuss tools you can use to improve your communication skills. They discuss the importance of providing structure to help the audience remember, the power of interactive learning, and the value of reviewing and reflecting on your communication.

Quote

"The expert in anything was once a beginner." — Helen Hayes

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Lower-Impact Journals, "Good Enough" Drafts, and Growth from Practice

Recently, I heard a researcher describe submitting to a lower-impact journal as "settling."

They framed it as the option to consider when the top-tier journals don't work out.

It was a reminder of how much language shapes our perceptions.

A paper in a lower-impact journal is not a consolation prize, or "settling." It's often a deliberate, well-reasoned, and scientifically sound choice. And the journal it appears in tells you almost nothing about the mark it will leave on the field.

Consider three papers that changed science—none of which appeared in Nature, Science, or Cell.

In 2013, Jennifer Doudna published a ​landmark paper​ on CRISPR genome editing in human cells in eLife—a journal that had launched just the year before and had no impact factor at the time.

In 1951, Oliver Lowry published a ​simple method​ for quantifying protein in the Journal of Biological Chemistry. With more than 300,000 citations, it is the most-cited scientific paper in history.

In 1958, Kaplan and Meier published their ​survival analysis method​ in the Journal of the American Statistical Association. This method is now used in more than 70% of clinical oncology research.

None of these articles appeared in a "top-tier" journal. Yet all three are foundational pillars of modern biomedical science.

So I'll keep reminding as many people as I can:

The venue is not the value. A paper published in a focused, rigorous, lower-profile journal is not a failure—it's often the right home for the work.

And finding the right home for your science? That's something to be proud of.

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

Round-up

From My Desk

​Your 10/10 Science Deserves Better Than 3/10 Writing​
Submitting a "good enough" draft can feel like a relief. But settling for "good enough" comes with a cost: rejected grants, desk-rejected manuscripts, delayed publications, fewer citations, and missed opportunities for recognition and advancement. In this video, I share how your manuscripts, grants, and other research documents are your research products—and how the writing you package them with matters just as much as the science.

Reading

​Academic journals’ AI policies fail to curb the surge in AI-assisted academic writing​
“. . .despite 70% of journals adopting AI policies (primarily requiring disclosure), researchers’ use of AI writing tools has increased dramatically across disciplines, with no significant difference between journals with or without policies. . . Crucially, full-text analysis on 164 k scientific publications reveals a striking transparency gap: Of the 75 k papers published since 2023, only 76 (~0.1%) explicitly disclosed AI use.”

​Continuation of Modifications to Peer Review Practices​

“. . . modifications were made to peer review practices for applications submitted for the January 2026 and May 2026 Advisory Councils...[and] will remain in place for the October 2026 Advisory Council:

• The percent of applications discussed in most meetings will be reduced to 30-35%, instead of the usual ~50%.

• Applications voted by the committee to be in the middle third will be designated as “competitive but not discussed” and applications in the lowest third will be designated as “not competitive and not discussed”. Applications in the middle third will be considered for funding, along with the discussed applications.

• Summary statements will be simplified. . . summaries will have a sentence describing the degree of consensus in the committee vote, plus bullets listing the main score driving points. Summaries for all applications will contain the written critiques from the 3 assigned reviewers. . . Summaries for applications that are discussed will have the overall impact score.”

Listening

​Hear Me Out: How Understanding Accents—Ours & Others—Improves Communication​
In this episode of Think Fast, Talk Smart, Valerie Fridland and host Matt Abrahams discuss how connection is a collaboration shaped by accents on both sides of the conversation. A few things that stood out to me were that filler words can sometimes be helpful, how we have speaking and listening accents, and the benefits of saying something before you introduce yourself.

Watching

​Growth comes from practice, not perfection
In this Instagram post, Simon Sinek shares his thoughts on AI, how we're so focused on metrics, and how we've forgotten about the value of the process that makes you a better version of yourself. "I don't want them to just say the perfect thing. I want to know why they are choosing the words."

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Unexpected Generosity, Human Editing, and the Illusion of Clarity

These days, everyone seems to be carrying a heavy load. And I've found that small gestures matter more than we may realize.

For example, when I'm walking my dog in the rain, I pick up newspapers on the sidewalk and leave them on the recipient's dry doorstep. Nobody asked me to. But it felt like the right thing to do.

It's an unexpected generosity.

What are some other ways to show unexpected generosity?

• Arrive early to every meeting so attendees don't have to wait for you.

• Submit your work ahead of the deadline to make life easier for your team.

• Share a useful resource, paper, or tool without being asked, simply because you thought of someone.

• Give thorough, constructive feedback on a project—the kind you'd hope to receive yourself.

• Respond to emails and review requests promptly, even with just a brief acknowledgment, so colleagues aren't left wondering.

Unexpected generosity doesn't require grand gestures. It's small choices you make—how you communicate, how you show up, and how you treat the people around you. These small acts can lighten someone's load and even brighten their day.

What are some ways that you like to show unexpected generosity?

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

Round-up

From My Desk

​How Human Editing Fixes What EditGPT Misses​
AI tools can help with writing, but they can't replace you. Last week, I shared how EditGPT can and can't improve a sample paragraph. In this video, I edit the same sample in real-time, with running commentary on the why behind every decision. From paragraph structure and topic sentences to word choice and reader empathy, this video is packed with tips you can immediately apply to your own writing.

Upcoming

​Early-Career Medical Writers Summit​ – June 8–12, 2026
I'm thrilled to join an incredible panel of speakers in this virtual summit designed especially for medical writers who want to grow their skills and gain confidence in the field. In my session, "Past the Prompt: What Strong Medical Writing Means Today," I’ll talk about why great writing still matters in the age of AI and how you can stand out as the human behind AI-generated text. You'll get expert sessions, exercises to practice new skills, and opportunities to ask questions during live Q&A sessions. Early-bird rate ends April 30.

Reading

​The Voice That Got Away: AI, Authenticity, and the Slow Death of Your Writing Voice​
"What is happening now is that many writers, particularly those who are not confident in their voice to begin with, are choosing the AI's version of their idea over their own. All because even if the AI version is not better it looks more like the writing they have been reading. It is polished. It sounds like expertise. It lacks the friction of a real human perspective. . . AI is not making mediocre writers better, no matter how much we wish it were, for the world would be a better place with more skilled writers. It is making mediocre writers feel better while widening the gap between their written voice and their real one (and ironically destroying the credibility they are seeking)."

​The Illusion of Clarity: How to Test Whether you Really Understand Something
“This exercise forced me to confront what I’ve come to call the illusion of clarity: the confident feeling that you understand something, when in reality your grasp is full of gaps you’ve never noticed. And I’m not the only one falling prey to the illusion of clarity. In a study, psychologists asked participants to rate how well they understood everyday devices like sewing machines, zippers, or cell phones and then asked them to write detailed explanations. After attempting the explanation, self-ratings dropped sharply. The act of actually trying to explain revealed how little people actually knew.”

Quote

"It's hard to build momentum if you keep dividing your attention.”–James Clear

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Frequency Illusion, Editor vs AI, and Polluted Literature

I've been experimenting more with AI to see how it might support my day-to-day work. Most of my experimenting has been with things like video summaries and marketing copy.

Through these experiments, I've noticed that AI tends to favor certain words, like practical, hidden, and quietly. Now I see these words everywhere. And when I do, I immediately think that the text was probably generated by AI.

The same thing seemed to have happened with the em dash—which is a powerful punctuation mark when used sparingly and intentionally.

But as I think more about this, I wonder if it's not necessarily that more people are using AI. Instead, maybe I'm experiencing the frequency illusion (more formally known as the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon).

The frequency illusion is a cognitive bias that makes something you've learned about suddenly appear everywhere, even though its real frequency hasn't changed at all. For example, if you're shopping for a new car and fall in love with a certain model, you start seeing that model everywhere.

So I'm beginning to wonder, maybe the frequency illusion is part of what makes all of this so fascinating. The more we notice patterns in writing through AI, the more we learn about our own biases in perception.

As we keep learning and experimenting, I hope we stay curious and use AI not to flatten our voices, but to deepen them—and to write with even more intention.

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

Round-up

From My Desk

​What EditGPT Gets Right—and Where It Falls Short​
Many writers are turning to AI tools to refine their scientific and medical writing. In this video, I put EditGPT to the test using a sample paragraph. You’ll see where EditGPT shines, where it stumbles, and what it completely misses—so you can make more informed decisions about when and how to use AI for your own writing.

Upcoming

​From Choppy to Cohesive: Creating Flow in Medical Writing​ – May 2, 2026
I'm delighted to be invited to speak at the AMWA Delaware Valley Chapter's Annual Princeton Forum about a common problem in medical writing: stacking facts in separate sentences without showing how the ideas connect. I'll also share how applying a few key writing principles can create a smooth flow that guides readers through the content, builds on their knowledge, and keeps them engaged. Registration closes April 30.

Reading

​Hallucinated citations are polluting the scientific literature. What can be done?​
"An exclusive analysis conducted by Nature’s news team, in collaboration with Grounded AI, a company based in Stevenage, UK, suggests that at least tens of thousands of 2025 publications, including journal papers and books, as well as conference proceedings, probably contain invalid references generated by AI."

​Journal Submissions Riddled With AI-Created Fake Citations​
“As AI proliferates in academic life, professors are increasingly haunted by phantom citations. . .Gale Sinatra, an education and psychology professor at the University of Southern California, recently asked an AI chatbot for a list of her publications, and it included some real papers and some made-up ones. The fake papers were so convincing she double-checked her own curriculum vitae.”

Listening

​Why so many studies can’t be replicated​
Some researchers have warned that many scientific studies can't be replicated. In this episode of Science Friday, Tim Errington and Abel Brodeur share their findings that only half of papers across economics, education, and psychology could be replicated. Although their work is in the social sciences, much of what they share translates to the health sciences.

Next Week in the Academy

Writing Feedback Lab
In our monthly Writing Feedback Labs, our members can get feedback on their writing through interactive discussions or collaborative revisions. Over the past few weeks, we've been talking a lot about presentations, so during next week's session, we'll discuss a slide deck on pharmacovigilance and safety monitoring in clinical trials. Join us when you're enrolled in ​Scientific Writing Simplified​.

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: "Good Enough" Drafts, AI Guidelines, and DOI-First Referencing

I've talked to many researchers who submit "good enough" drafts of their manuscripts. By that point, they're burned out from months—or even years—of collecting data, analyzing results, and writing the manuscript. And they just want to get the draft off their desk.

But when readers have to trudge through dense or confusing prose, they lose interest—and with it, they lose meaning.

The writing might meet the standard for scientific rigor, but it doesn't meet the standard for reader engagement.

Yet engagement is the real threshold for impact.

An engaged reader is more likely to:

• Grasp the significance of your findings.

• Retain your message.

• Apply your insights in research or practice.

• Cite, share, and build on your work.

None of that happens unless your reader connects with your message. And connection starts with writing that feels clear, purposeful, and alive—that respects the reader's intellect and attention.

A “good enough” draft might get the job done, but your work deserves more than that.

Great science deserves great writing.

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

Round-up

From My Desk

​5 Essential Guidelines for Using AI in Scientific Writing
​AI tools like large language models can be really useful. But they also have risks and limitations—and you are the one who is accountable for how they’re used. In this second video of my series on how to use AI responsibly for scientific and medical writing, I share some best practices so you can confidently and responsibly use these tools for your own work.

Reading

​Towards a DOI-First Referencing Model: Opportunities, Limitations and Implications for Scholarly Publishing​
“This article proposes a DOI-first referencing model as a simplified and identifier-centered approach to scholarly citation. It discusses the opportunities of DOI-based referencing for improving efficiency, interoperability, and integration with digital research infrastructure while acknowledging disciplinary diversity and identifier limitations. The paper argues that prioritizing persistent identifiers can modernize citation practices in an increasingly digital and AI-assisted scholarly publishing environment.”

​Correction to a retraction highlights tortured phrases have been around longer than LLMs​
“While large language models are taking the blame for hallucinations, punctuation and all manner of language choices these days, turns of phrase were being tortured well before the arrival of LLMs. . . ‘Tortured phrases are produced by ‘text spinners’: online websites running a basic algorithm that replaces some words with synonyms, using a thesaurus."

Training

​From AI Curious to Confident​​ – May 4, 2026
Most AI training for medical writers offers generic advice that doesn’t reflect the reality of working with clinical data, peer-reviewed literature, and regulatory standards. In this 2-week bootcamp, Núria Negrão will give you practical, real-world AI workflows with hands-on exercises, real use cases, and live Q&A in just 35 minutes a day. Early bird rate ends April 15.

Quote

"We tend to think of writing as the act of assembling words, but it's a deeper experience than this. Words may be symbols, but they are not abstractions; they are the method by which we express our ideas." – John Warner

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Partial Points, AI Risks, and Responsible Authorship

A few days ago, I was talking to someone about task management and making progress in the small pockets of time available in our schedules. During our conversation, she shared an interesting strategy she uses to track the laps she swims in the pool (thanks, Vijaya!).

When she swims, she aims for 36 laps (or about one mile). But instead of counting 36 laps one by one—which can feel daunting until at least the midway point—she counts in quarter points. After every four laps, she gives herself one point. That way, she only needs to reach nine points instead of 36, which feels like a smaller, more achievable goal.

I found this approach fascinating because it doesn't exactly break a big task into smaller ones. Instead, it organizes tasks into batches that get marked as done when the group is complete.

What could this look like in your writing?

Maybe progress means writing one paragraph instead of a set of sentences. Or revising all the figure legends as one "section." Or as responding to reviewer comments in one section at a time.

I've been batching tasks for a while, so that part isn't new to me. But I hadn't thought about using partial points to make a large project feel smaller and more doable. I'm curious to see how this reframing might change how I approach my work.

Have you tried something like this? Hit reply and let me know—I'd love to hear what works for you.

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

Round-up

From My Desk

AI in Scientific Writing: Powerful Helper or Risky Enabler?​
Everywhere you turn, you see AI—new tools, clever prompts, and lots of hype about what they can do for your writing. But these tools also carry important risks, limitations, and implications, especially in scientific and medical research. This video kicks off a series on how to use AI responsibly for your writing, starting with some key risks and limitations to keep in mind.

Upcoming

Early-Career Medical Writers Summit – June 8–12, 2026
I’m excited to be speaking about what strong medical writing means in the age of AI at the Early-Career Medical Writers Summit this June. This virtual summit is designed to support new and aspiring medical writers with practical advice from professionals working in the field. You'll get expert sessions, exercises to practice new skills, and opportunities to ask questions during live Q&A sessions. Early-bird rate ends April 30.

Reading

​The complex ecosystem of hyperprolific authors​
". . . hyperprolific ​authorship​ is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, shaped by disciplinary traditions, methodological choices, and structural incentives within academia. It is neither confined to a single field nor governed by a uniform definition. . . [P]erceptions of hyperprolificacy vary substantially. . . with some portraying it as a marker of successful collaboration and others raising concerns about questionable practices. This divergence reflects an underlying tension between valuing high productivity and safeguarding scientific integrity.

​Creating a responsible authorship culture in science: Anchoring authorship practices in principles of transparency, credit, and accountability​
"We propose that fostering a responsible authorship culture requires a shared, principle-based framework grounded in transparency, ​credit​, and accountability. These three interconnected principles. . . will strengthen the credibility of individual research, the fairness of recognition systems, and, ultimately, the trustworthiness of science itself."

...Oh, and if you want a strategy to ensure these three principles hold true for your author team, check out ​this video​ (and free planning tool).

Training

​Root Cause Analysis Practice Lab – April 9, 2026
Can you explain why a clinical practice gap exists—not just describe it? WriteCME Pro is hosting a Root Cause Analysis Practice Lab. In this hands-on lab, you'll learn how to identify true drivers of practice gaps, filter for educational addressability, and write compelling narratives.

Quote

"Every act of conscious learning requires the willingness to suffer an injury to one's self-esteem. That is why young children, before they are aware of their own self-importance, learn so easily; and why older persons, especially if vain or important, cannot learn at all." – Thomas Szasz

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal