Interlude: YouTube, Human Expertise, and Self-Retraction
I have big news!
I spend a lot of time thinking about how I can help researchers and other professional writers learn how to write better (and enjoy the process!). So after mulling over the idea for longer than I'd like to admit, I've decided the take a big leap...
I started a YouTube channel! 🎉
On the channel, I'll share weekly videos packed with principles, frameworks, and strategies that can help you optimize your writing and writing process.
I'm so excited about this new journey. And I've already uploaded my first two videos (linked below). I'm still fine-tuning things, but I hope that you will at least find the information in these first videos valuable.
If you like the videos, please give them a thumbs up so that I know the type of content that you find most helpful. And be sure to subscribe so you don't miss a thing.
And if there is something you'd like me to discuss on the channel, add your ideas to the video comments. I started this channel for you, so I want to be sure I'm creating something that you will find valuable.
Now onto this week's round-up...
💌 Round-up
💻 From My Desk
This book changed how I think about scientific writing
In this first episode of the book club series, we'll dive into my favorite book about scientific writing: Writing Science in Plain English by Anne E. Greene. This book is a must-read for anyone who wants to make their scientific and medical writing clear, engaging, and accessible. I share my favorite takeaways and practical tips you can use to transform your writing, bridge gaps between disciplines, and connect with a broader audience.
This common phrase could manipulate reviewers
Are you using a common phrase in your scientific and medical writing that could be eroding your credibility? In this video, I reveal the two-part phrase that could be perceived as manipulating reviewers, editors, and other readers. You’ll learn why this language might weaken your arguments, erode your credibility, and damage trust in your work, you, and science. And you'll learn a better way to show the novelty of your work and persuade reviewers.
👓 Reading
CONSORT 2025 Statement: Updated Guideline for Reporting Randomized Trials
"We have made substantive changes to the CONSORT checklist. We added 7 new checklist items, revised 3 items, deleted 1 item, and integrated several items from key CONSORT extensions. We also restructured the CONSORT checklist, with a new section on open science. The CONSORT 2025 statement consists of a 30-item checklist of essential items that should be included when reporting the results of a randomized trial and a diagram for documenting the flow of participants through the trial."
Artificial intelligence in academic writing: Enhancing or replacing human expertise?
"The study reveals that AI-generated articles exhibit higher readability scores...but may lack depth in analysis. Evaluators could correctly identify AI authorship with 61 % accuracy, and preferences were nearly even between AI-generated (47 %) and human-written (44 %) articles. While AI improves accessibility and efficiency in academic writing, its limitations in clinical experience, originality, and nuanced analysis highlight the need for human oversight. The integration of AI should be as a complementary tool rather than a replacement for human expertise."
Self-retraction as redemption: Forgiveness for repentant authors
"...this paper proposes a model for Hierarchical Self-Retraction Forgiveness (HSRF). The model is specifically designed for retractions related to misconduct, aiming to mitigate systemic obstacles to retraction. By alleviating concerns over reputational damage, it seeks to encourage both authors and their affiliated institutions, as well as the higher supporting layers of the system, to engage in self-retraction without fear of social or institutional penalties."
Thank you so much for reading.
Warmly,
Crystal
