Interlude: Teaching, Recognizing Participants, and Reclaiming Writing Time
When I first started college, I wanted to be a math teacher. I loved math (some things change) and teaching (some things don't).
Along the way, I often heard the saying, "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach."
But I've come to realize how deeply untrue that saying is—especially in science and medicine, where teaching and mentoring are at the heart of progress.
Teaching, in any form, demands a deep understanding and an ability to connect with others. Whether you’re explaining a complex concept to a colleague, mentoring a student, or presenting your research, you’re not just sharing knowledge—you’re building bridges for others to cross.
We all have opportunities to teach and inspire. Let’s celebrate the skill it takes to make difficult ideas clear, to answer unexpected questions, and to help others grow.
As Aristotle said, “Those who know, do. Those that understand, teach.”
Here’s to all of you who do—and teach.
Now onto this week's round-up...
💌 Round-up
🎉 Featured
Choosing a language that recognizes the contributions of people who take part in research
I'm delighted to share my latest publication in the EMWA Journal! In the article, I share how the term subjects can fuel disrespect, mistrust, and bias in clinical practice and research; how participants is a more precise and respectful term; and what other terms you can use to more accurately, precisely, and respectfully describe people who take part in clinical research.
...Oh, and if you want to learn more about language that fuels stigma and bias, check out my free Inclusive Language Fundamentals course.
💻 From My Desk
How to Spend Less Time in Meetings and More Time Writing
Are meetings eating up your writing time? When I ask researchers what pulls their attention away from their writing, the number one answer I get is: meetings. In this video, I share five strategies that have helped me get control of my meetings and that will help you spend less time in meetings and more time writing.
👓 Reading
Formalistic data and code availability policy in high-profile medical journals and pervasive policy-practice gaps in published articles: A meta-research study
"Poor data and code (DAC) sharing undermines open science principles….DAC availability policies of 931 Q1 medical journals (Clarivate JCR 2021) were evaluated, with PPGs [policy-practice gaps] quantified across 3,191 articles from The BMJ, JAMA, NEJM, and The Lancet….Only 9.1% (85/931) of journals mandated DAC sharing and availability statements, with 70.6% of these lacking mechanisms to verify authenticity, and 61.2% allowing publication despite invalid sharing.”
Explosion of formulaic research articles, including inappropriate study designs and false discoveries, based on the NHANES US national health database
"We found evidence that research failed to take account of multifactorial relationships, that manuscripts did not account for the risks of false discoveries, and that researchers selectively extracted data from NHANES [National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey] rather than utilizing the full range of data available. Given the explosion of AI-assisted productivity in published manuscripts..., we highlight a set of best practices to address these concerns, aimed at researchers, data controllers, publishers, and peer reviewers, to encourage improved statistical practices and mitigate the risks of paper mills using AI-assisted workflows to introduce low-quality manuscripts to the scientific literature.”
💬 Quote
“Everyone wants the summary. But the summary is what's left after someone else decided what matters. Their priorities aren't yours. Their filters aren't yours. When you operate on summaries, you're thinking with someone else's brain.” –Shane Parrish
Thank you so much for reading.
Warmly,
Crystal
