Interlude: Collective Illusions, Desk Rejection, and Chasing Impact
A few months ago, I listened to a podcast interview with Todd Rose, author of Collective Illusions: Conformity, Complicity, and the Science of Why We Make Bad Decisions.
In the interview, Todd described a fascinating study about how our opinions can be shaped by others, even when we think we are being objective.
In the study, participants rated how attractive they found people in photos. Then they saw a supposed "average rating" from a group that was actually made up. Then when the participants rated the photos again, most shifted their scores to align with the average rating.
In other words, they conformed to groupthink, not because they truly changed their minds, but because they didn't want to stand out. Todd calls this a collective illusion.
When I heard this, I thought about the use of promotional language in scientific and medical writing, particularly in manuscripts and grants. I've always been cautious about using promotional language. Although it can sound impressive, it can also create hype that erodes credibility. Still, many researchers tell me they use it because they think "that's what reviewers expect."
This made me wonder: did promotional language become "expected" because it's genuinely persuasive, or because one reviewer was swayed by it years ago and everyone else followed suit?
Maybe this, too, is a kind of collective illusion.
As communicators, we all want our work to stand out for the right reasons—clarity, integrity, and genuine insight. Maybe we need to question our collective habits (or presumed conventions) and decide which ones still serve us.
I'd love to hear your thoughts. Do you think the use of promotional language is more about collective illusions than true persuasion?
Now onto this week's round-up...
Round-up
From My Desk
7 Reasons Papers Get Desk Rejected (and How to Avoid Them)
Desk rejection can be frustrating and feel like a verdict on your abilities, but it’s often about fixable issues in your research manuscript. In this video, I share 7 common reasons journal editors reject papers without peer review and practical strategies to address each one before you submit.
Reading
How chasing a high-impact publication nearly broke me
"The relentless pursuit of academic success through publications in prestigious journals nearly broke me. Looking back, I’m not sure it was worth the sacrifice. I might not have felt the need to step away from academia had we aimed for a lower impact journal."
ArXiv preprint server clamps down on AI slop
". . . a rule instituted on 21 January now requires first-time posters to be endorsed by an established arXiv author in their own field. People who have previously posted in the same disciplinary section of arXiv do not need an endorsement. The move is an attempt to clamp down on a rising tide of fraudulent submissions. . ."
Listening
Using ‘impact’ as a verb. ‘Sympathy’ versus ‘empathy.’ Big help, Irving.
I've met many writers who have strong feelings about about the use of "impact" as a verb. I'm careful about using "impact" as a verb (or even a noun) because I think it's a vague verb. In this podcast episode, Grammar Girl shares how the use of "impact" as a verb evolved and why this use can be problematic in your writing.
Training
Marketing Made Easy with AI – The Mighty Marketer
In this 7-week online course with Lori De Milto, you can discover how to use AI as your personal marketing assistant. You'll get an AI-powered toolkit packed with ready-to-use resources and prompts that you can combine with your own voice to help you grow your business and personal brand. Starts February 9, 2026. Join now to save 50%.
Thank you so much for reading.
Warmly,
Crystal
