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