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
