Interlude: 2026 Template (Copy)
I recently learned about something called subtractive neglect bias, or the tendency to improve something by adding to it rather than subtracting or simplifying it.
For example, when study participants were asked to stabilize a Lego structure, they defaulted to searching for ways to add blocks rather than subtract blocks. But either approach would have achieved the same result of stabilizing the blocks.
I've noticed a similar bias come up in writing. Authors tend to default to adding more information rather than subtracting information.
For one of my clients, a reviewer flagged a sentence as unclear. So my client added a few details to clarify what they were thinking. Only those "few details" added several sentences, which pushed the text well over the word limit.
But in this case, the fix wasn't to explain more. It was to cut out the unclear detail. Once they cut out the detail, the sentence became clear, and they even shaved off a few words.
I think the subtractive neglect bias occurs because subtracting feels riskier than adding. If you add something, then you don't have to risk leaving out something that could be important. If you subtract something, you need to trust that readers won't need that detail. That can feel risky in a field built on credibility.
But the Lego study is a reminder that you don't always have to add to stabilize the structure—or craft a clear, credible sentence. You can also remove the unstable parts.
So the next time someone flags something as unclear, resist the urge to add more, and ask yourself whether you need to subtract instead. You might find that the clearest version is already there, just buried under a little complexity.
Now onto this week's round-up...
Round-up
Reading
Dissecting the gender divide: authorship and acknowledgment in scientific publications
"Our findings primarily highlight two key points: (1) Men are generally more likely to receive authorship credit, specifically in the roles of Investigation & Analysis (I&A) and Writing, with the disparity being particularly pronounced in I&A. (2) Regardless of gender, when scholars with different levels of status collaborate, those with higher citation counts are more likely to have higher authorship rate in I&A role. This pattern is evident in our dataset: across all disciplines...the number of highly cited men exceeds that of women."
The Funding Beat
If you want to keep up on all the happenings in the funding world, I highly recommend subscribing Melanie Das's newsletter The Funding Beat. She includes "de-doomscrolled" news updates, a "doomscroll antidote," and new funding opportunities.
Federal lawsuit accuses four major publishers of extorting article processing charges
"A lawsuit filed under the U.S. False Claims Act accuses four major publishers of perpetrating a decade-long scheme to defraud the government by charging exorbitant article processing charges. The case, which became unsealed July 30, claims Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Informa forced U.S. research institutions to submit false claims to the government for reimbursement through article fees up to 10 times the cost of processing the articles."
Watching
Turn Data Into Stories
"Because if you're giving any kind of presentation, whether it's a sales pitch or presentation internally to your own company, you know it's a bit of a tour. . . You are the guide taking them through the information, through the history or the future or the ideas. . . The people who just overwhelm us with data and facts, it's too much."
Quote
"Your net productivity is the balance of the productive and unproductive forces in your life. A great deal of time and energy is spent thinking about how to increase effort, but there is a lot to be gained by reducing friction. A car will travel faster not only if you press the accelerator, but also if you remove the speed bumps." – James Clear
Thank you so much for reading.
Warmly,
Crystal
