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

Interlude: Getting Stung, Responding to Reviewers, and Finding Macro Tools

Earlier this week, my dog got stung by a bee. It was the first time he'd been stung since I adopted him earlier this year. And although a bee sting might not seem like a big deal, when you’re only 7 pounds and you get stung in the face, it can quickly become a big deal.

I've also had a dog who was allergic to bee stings. So the moment I realized what happened, I panicked. I scooped him up and ran home to remove the stinger and monitor him.

Once I was home, I caught myself. My panicking wasn't helping the situation. So I paused, took a deep breath, assessed the situation, and figured out what to do next. After getting the stinger out and a precautionary trip to the vet, he was fine.

Why am I telling you this story?

When I reflected on the situation later, I realized my panic wasn't really a response to what was happening, but rather a result of my past experience with a different dog and different situation years earlier. My past experience was bleeding into my present one, even though the situations were different.

I think that same thing can happen when we get "stung" by a reviewer. A curt comment, a rejection, or a rude tone can strike a nerve. And then suddenly we're not just reacting to this review, but to the weight of every harsh comment or rejection that came before.

So the next time a review stings, give yourself a moment—or a day—to step away before responding. When you come back to it, focus on what the feedback says rather than how it makes you feel. Then you can get a clearer view of what you need to do next.

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

Round-up

Featured

​Recommendations for Responding to Reviewer Comments for Manuscript Resubmissions​
I'm thrilled to share my latest publication in the AMWA Journal! In this article, I share an approach for how to respond to reviewer comments when you are resubmitting a manuscript to a journal. I describe how to format the response clearly by gathering and categorizing the comments. I also share how to craft thoughtful responses that express gratitude and use a diplomatic and respectful tone—especially when your disagree with the reviewers.

Reading

The data transparency crisis in research: Lessons from systematic reviews and meta-analyses​
"The persistent gap between data-sharing policies and their implementation continues to limit the reproducibility and interpretability of research findings. . . scientific claims are still often disseminated without access to the underlying data and code needed to evaluate them. . . Greater coordination across journals, funders, regulators, and institutions can help make data and code availability standard practice, fostering a research culture in which transparency and reproducibility are embedded in everyday scientific work.”

​Cross-publisher agreement on the defining principles of plain language summaries of publications (PLSPs)​
”The aim of this cross-publisher agreement is to establish the foundation necessary for the standardization and recognition of PLSPs as a distinct article type in research databases (e.g. PubMed) and an acceptable secondary publication format, which will ultimately encourage their development and improve their discoverability.”

Watching

​Never Show Anyone Your First Draft​
"Remember this, no one is going to see it. . . The one rule you cannot break is you don't show anybody your s***** first draft. It's for nobody's eyes. And so you go in knowing that, and you write with that freedom."

Tools

​Word Macro Tools by Paul Beverley​
Do you use (or want to use) macros for editing? I recently attended an excellent webinar on macros, and one of the speakers created a library with more than 1300 macros that you can download for free. He also has tutorials and other guides to help you get acquainted with macros.

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Time Optimism, Hyphens as Screws, and the Peer-Review Crisis

Have you ever given yourself a day to complete a task that should take only a few hours, and somehow you end up taking the whole day to complete it?

This is Parkinson’s Law at play.

Parkinson’s Law states that work expands to fill the time available. This expansion can drain your productivity because you’ll take more time to complete a task than needed.

However, Parkinson’s Law can also lead to a bigger problem: the opposite—and faulty—belief that if you shrink the time you have available, you can complete the task in a shorter amount of time. For example, if you have a 1-hour task and 30 minutes to complete it, then you will take 30 minutes to complete the task.

This faulty belief can lead to time optimism, where we underestimate the scope of the task or time needed to complete it—which can lead to bottlenecks, poor quality work, and burnout.

According to a ​2026 report​, 34.8% of leaders identify as Time Optimists who consistently underestimate the workload and contribute to bottlenecks. Although this percentage applies to leaders (eg, CEOs), I know that many of us have identified as Time Optimists. And when we struggle to complete tasks in a shorter amount of time than needed, we might think that we are not disciplined enough.

But time optimism isn’t a discipline problem. It’s a misjudgment problem.

The good news is that once you recognize this, you know what direction to take to address it. You don’t need to be more disciplined, focused, or perseverant. You need to estimate more realistically, add buffer time to that estimate, and even track how long tasks actually take you to complete so you can estimate better in the future.

I’m working on this myself. Time optimism hit me hard over the past couple of years. I’d block an hour for something that really needed a few hours and then wonder why I was always behind. Tracking my actual time—and comparing it to my estimated time—helped me see the pattern.

So the next time you think a task will only take an hour, ask yourself whether that estimate is based on evidence or optimism.

Are you a time optimist? Hit reply. I’d love to hear your story.

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

Round-up

Reading

​17 Kinds of Hyphens You Need to Know About… Yes, 17!​
”​Hyphens​ are like little screws that hold words together. Now, if you’ve ever gone to a hardware store to buy screws, you know that there are a lot of different kinds of screws. But hyphens? They all look the same – well, within any specific font, anyway.” Read on to learn the 17 kinds of hyphens.

​Can AI help solve the peer-review crisis? Here are its promises and pitfalls​
I couldn’t settle on just one or two quotes from this article. It was packed with interesting findings and insights. I highly recommend grabbing your favorite beverage and reading the whole thing. Or if you’d prefer to listen to it, you can also select that option on the web page.

Watching

​Rough Draft vs Final Draft​
In the Instagram Reel, Elle Cordova shares a fun skit on a conversation between a rough draft and final draft—and the end made me laugh out loud. This short video is a must watch.

Tools

SCSIR database​
While catching up with a client this week, I learned that their grant was recently terminated (yes, this is still happening). If you or a colleague are in the same boat, I want to remind you that the Science Communicators Supporting Impacted Researchers (SCSIR) Database is still up and running. This free resource connects science communicators who are willing to offer pro bono services to researchers whose federal grants were terminated.

Quote

"Should you find yourself in a chronically leaking boat, energy devoted to changing vessels is likely to be more productive than energy devoted to patching leaks." – Warren Buffet

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: AI Detective, Co-Occurring Retractions, and Finished Cake

I’ve been reading a new non-fiction book that was published last year, and something about the writing isn’t sitting right with me. The alliteration is a little too clever and consistent. Although the author might have a gift for coining phrases, I have a strong suspicion that this book had a lot of help from AI.

I’m not going to knock the author for using AI. Most of us are using AI tools in some capacity, and they can be helpful for your writing. And I know that a few weeks ago, I even said not to worry too much about “AI tells” in your writing. I still believe that.

But as I’ve been reading this book and noticing myself scanning for AI fingerprints, I’ve realized that what bothers me isn’t about the writing quality. It’s about trust—whether we can trust the person behind the words.

The more I question whether the text was AI-generated, the less I trust the author. And I wonder if this trust is why we keep wanting to identify “AI tells” in the first place.

I’ll also add that trust is not about using or not using tools. Writers use all sorts of tools—spellcheckers, grammar checkers, translators, readability calculators, and more. But AI has a power far beyond the tools that have been available in the past. And that power comes with a real risk to trust.

The author of the book did not include a disclosure or acknowledgment that they used AI (like we need to include in published manuscripts), so there is no way of really knowing. And I plan to finish the book because it still offers insight on the topic that I’ve found useful.

Maybe that’s the lesson here: that disclosure is what helps readers trust without playing “AI detective.” This disclosure is required for our manuscripts, which supports trust in the authors and in science. This disclosure is not (yet) required for grant proposals, but I encourage you to disclose AI use in those documents as well to build trust with reviewers. And until this disclosure becomes the norm everywhere, we need to read carefully, trust selectively, and keep disclosing our own use, so that trust (not suspicion) is at the heart of our relationships with readers.

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

Round-up

Reading

​Retraction and correction of scientific articles due to conflicts of interest: a cross‑sectional analysis of the retraction watch database​
“Editorial actions explicitly linked to CoI [​conflicts of interest​] remain relatively uncommon compared with the broader volume of retractions and corrections, and CoI are rarely cited in isolation. The frequent co-occurrence of CoI with other forms of misconduct or procedural problems suggests that undisclosed or poorly managed CoI often signal deeper weaknesses in disclosure practices, editorial oversight, and research governance rather than isolated administrative lapses.”

​Just over 400 U.S. patents contain citations to retracted scientific papers​
”Of the more than 13 million patents in the USPTO database, 136,162 contained citations to at least one scientific paper. Of these, 401 patents cited retracted papers: 195 cited the retracted paper before it was filed, 92 cited papers retracted while being examined, and 114 cited a paper that was retracted after the patent was granted, the study revealed.”

Watching

​This Is Not the Cake​
“When you’re writing something, it is incredibly tempting to look at other people’s books. And you’re comparing your flour and eggs with finished cake. Don’t do it. This is not the cake. You have not finished. You’ve barely started. Keep going.”

Tools

​Remove AI overviews from Google​
When doing a Google search, do you wish you could just skip the AI overview and get right to the search results? You can trick Google into removing this overview by add "-AI" after your search query.

Quote

“Reading, like writing, is a creative act. If readers only bring a narrow range of themselves to the book, then they’ll only see their narrow range reflected in it.” – Ben Okri

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Bad Writing Days, AI in Publications, and What Audiences Want

I recently watched a ​TED talk​ in which Olympic runner Alexi Pappas shared how she got through a rough patch while training. When she struggled to meet a running goal, her coach told her it was just the Rule of Thirds.

According to her coach, you are not supposed to feel good about working toward a goal all the time. Instead, you’re supposed to feel good one-third of the time, okay one-third of the time, and bad one-third of the time. That’s the sweet spot.

If you feel good most of the time, you might not be pushing yourself enough. If you feel bad most of the time, you might be running yourself into the ground.

I think this Rule of Thirds is also a useful mindset for chasing a writing goal. Some days you might feel really productive. Other days you might feel unproductive and that you barely got anything done. Although those days can feel like failure, they’re not. They’re signals that you’re working toward a goal that matters.

So the next time you have a “bad” writing day, give yourself grace. It doesn’t mean you’re failing. It means you’re doing important work.

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

Round-Up

Reading

​Updated Guidance for Author Use of AI in Medical Publication​
In this article, JAMA Network Journals offer guidance for the acceptable use of AI for conducting research, searching the literature, preparing manuscripts, checking grammar and spelling, translating text, drafting letters and opinions, populating bibliographic references, creating images and illustrations, developing video and audio, completing peer review, and more.

​Artificial Intelligence in Medical Writing: A Practical and Ethical Framework for Surgical Research and Publication​
”AI should be regarded as an adjunct to, not a substitute for, scientific reasoning and scholarly judgment. When used transparently and under expert supervision, AI can enhance the quality and efficiency of medical writing while preserving the central intellectual responsibilities of authorship, interpretation, verification, and accountability. As AI systems become increasingly autonomous, maintaining rigorous human oversight will become progressively more important.”

​Presence and content of policies on the use of generative artificial intelligence in nursing journals indexed in PubMed: a descriptive study​
”This analysis of 154 nursing journals demonstrated that 108 (70.1%) have established AI-related policies, revealing a discrepancy between global ethical guidance and operational implementation at the journal level. Although major ethics organizations emphasize human accountability and prohibit AI authorship, the absence of specific enforcement mechanisms remains a substantial challenge. To safeguard the integrity of nursing research, timely policy development by journals and publishers is essential. Such policies should extend beyond general statements to include clear review procedures and proportionate sanctions tailored to the ethical context of nursing scholarship.”

Watching

​AI movies​
Although this Instagram reel shows a skit about the debate on using AI to create movies, I’ve noticed a similar debate with using AI for writing. AI might help you writer cheaper or seemingly faster, but audiences actually don’t like reading writing generated by AI.

Quote

“A reader taking the time to sit down with my words, is an act of generosity. The very least I can do, is to make sure that I’m creating a book that is worthy of that generosity.” – Tiffany McDanial

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Learning by Listening, Errors as Information, and Speaking with Confidence

Earlier this week, I posted something on LinkedIn that was on my mind: the use of “denies” in my medical chart. (I won’t go into details about the post, but you can find it through ​this link​ if you’re interested.)

After a few hours, I only had a handful of impressions and thought that the post was not of interest to anyone. That’s okay. I know that not every post will be helpful or spark a conversation. But over the following couple of days, I got a response I did not expect.

I was blown away by the number of comments that people posted. They shared their experiences and perspectives from clinical, patient, and legal standpoints. In some cases, they shared very strong opinions, some of which differed from mine and challenged my thinking.

I loved seeing the comments, not because I want engagement points on social media, but because I wanted to have a conversation and listen to what others had to say.

And I’ve so appreciated the conversation. I’ve learned perspectives I hadn’t considered (such as legal considerations). I’ve heard personal stories about how patients (and simulated patients) have felt when reading certain language in medical charts. And I’ve loved digging into the meaning and history of language to understand how one word can affect so many different aspects of the medical field.

Although my stance on “denies” is the same, I now understand more of the layers that this word influences in the broader medical field. And I can think more strategically about solutions that would serve each of these layers.

I’m so grateful for these deep conversations that not only connect us, but challenge us to think differently and even collaborate to influence change.

So here’s my question for you: what’s something you’ve learned recently just by listening to someone who saw things differently than you?

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

Round-up

Reading

​Making Friends with Error​
”Today, we use error as a synonym for mistake: something to be ashamed of, something to fix and forget. But for scientists, an error is simply the gap between prediction and outcome. It carries no moral weight. It’s just information. . . So an error really is just a detour. And every detour is an opportunity to explore new territory.”

​Whoops! Most arXiv papers contain information never meant to be shared​
”Nearly all of the nearly three million papers available on the arXiv preprint server contain details the authors never meant to share, a new study finds.”

Listening

​Quick Thinks: Speak with Confidence, Clarity, and Power​
”In this Quick Thinks episode of Think Fast, Talk Smart, Matt Abrahams shares practical techniques for projecting your voice with confidence, building vocal stamina, and using microphones effectively. From breathing with more control to making the most of your physical presence, you'll learn simple strategies to ensure your message is heard when it matters most.”

Tools

​Chrome Vertical Tabs​
I just started using the new “vertical tabs” feature in Chrome and am already a fan. This layout lets you easily read full page titles and manage tab groups, even when you have a dozen tabs open. And if you try it and don’t like it, you can just revert back to “horizontal tabs.”

Quote

“Mistakes are the portals of discovery." Ulysses

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

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