Interlude: New Year Challenge, Past-Year Reviews, and Mass-Produced Manuscripts

As I reflect on the past year, one theme stands out: change.

We have been navigating changes in funding, publishing, the expansion of AI, and more. And these changes have been challenging—in good and bad ways.

Fortunately, I am challenge-driven. That's one reason why I love the challenge of condensing text to meet a word limit.

I also enjoy the challenge of thinking about scientific and medical writing in unconventional ways—and inspiring others to do the same.

So in the new year, I have a challenge for you.

Starting on January 12, I am hosting a FREE 5-day challenge to inspire you to simplify your writing to amplify your science.

I hope that you will join me.

​Save your spot in the 5-day challenge​

This will be the last newsletter for 2025. Until the new year, I wish you peace, joy, and warmth with the ones you love.

Now onto the last round-up of 2025...

💌 Round-up

💻 From My Desk

​Plan Your Best Year Yet with a 1‑Hour Past-Year Review​
Do you set New Year’s Resolutions only to give up on them a couple of weeks or even days later? I certainly have. So about 5 years ago, I started using a different strategy that has given me more valuable and actionable information to set myself up for success in the new year. And in this video, I share that strategy with you.

👓 Reading

​Guidance on the Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Accredited Continuing Education (CE)​
Although this guidance includes considerations for the responsible use of generative AI for accredited continuing education programs, the guidance encompasses 7 categories that apply to most fields:

1. Safeguard independence and mitigate bias

2. Transparently disclose AI use

3. Ensure human oversight, accuracy, and accountability

4. Protect learner identity and sensitive information

5. Limit prohibited or high-risk uses

6. Establish internal governance and continuous improvement practices

7. Secure databases and AI systems

​Meeting the challenges posed by mass-produced manuscripts and click-data science​
"The combination of open-access datasets, machine learning workflows, increased computing capacity, and generative artificial intelligence has effectively removed many of the rate-limiting steps in manuscript production. This has created an industry of click-data science and a flood of low-quality manuscripts based on large health datasets. . . These papers often employ statistically appropriate methods and real data, but introduce misleading results and false discoveries to the literature."

🧰 Tools

​The Stacks Illustration Library​
If you're looking for organism illustrations to include in your work, check out The Stacks free, open-access library of high-quality organism illustrations for science communication.

💬 Quote

"Great minds don’t always think alike. They challenge each other to think differently.” -Author Unknown

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Compounding Ideas, Levels of Evidence, and AI in Trial Design

I've worked with many researchers who feel hesitant to share their ideas before they are published. It's understandable. The research enterprise can make them view others as competitors, and the fear of being scooped is pervasive.

Still, I've come to believe that the rewards of sharing ideas far outweigh the risks—because ideas compound.

I was recently reminded of insight from George Bernard Shaw: “If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples, then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.”

I think this quote captures the magic of openness in research. When we share our ideas, we multiply them. Collaboration and shared thinking can move science forward in ways that isolation and secrecy can't.

When ideas compound, discovery accelerates.

What’s one idea you’ve been sitting on that could spark progress if you shared it?

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

💌 Round-up

🎉 Featured

​​Most Downloaded Paper​​
​I was delighted when the managing editor of the Journal of Maine Medical Center shared that my article, "​Inclusive Language Matters: Recommendations for Health Care Providers to Address Implicit Bias and Equitable Health Care​," is the most-downloaded paper from the journal's website.

...Oh, and if you want to learn even more about inclusive language, you can enroll in my ​Inclusive Language Fundamentals​ course—for free!

💻 From My Desk

How the “Level of Evidence” Signals Study Quality
Do you treat every paper you read as “good evidence” because it’s been published? It turns out that some published studies have more weight and dependability in medical science than others. In this video, I share the different levels of evidence so that you know which studies are the highest quality, how to choose the best sources to cite in your writing, and even what level you want to aim for in your own work.

👓 Reading

​10 Things Writers Should Know About Medical Editing​
In this article, the medical editing legend Barbara Gastel shares 10 things she thinks wordsmiths need to know about medical writing and editing. I also highly recommend checking out her new book, Medical Editing.

​The Role of AI in Clinical Trial Design and Scientific Writing​
"This review explores applications of artificial intelligence in patient matching, endpoint design and predictive trial outcomes, and real-time patient monitoring. It also discusses its role in assisting with literature review, generating content, and refining language in scientific writing, especially for nonnative English speakers. Challenges such as data standardization, explainability, and ethical concerns are highlighted alongside emerging regulatory frameworks to ensure transparent and responsible artificial intelligence integration."

💬 Quote

"Writing is nature's way of telling us how lousy our thinking is." – Leslie Lamport

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal

Interlude: Discussion Elements, Retraction Trends, and Better Conversations

Every time I sit down to write this newsletter, I'm grateful for you. Every week, you share you valuable time and attention with me. What an incredible gift!

As we approach the end of the year, I'm thinking about ways that I can better serve you in 2026. And I'd love your input.

Will you take just 2 minutes to ​share what you would value most​ in the new year?

As a thank you, you'll be entered to win either a 1:1 coaching session with me or course-only access to Scientific Writing Simplified for 1 year—your choice!

​Complete the 2-minute survey​

Thank you so much for your help. I appreciate you.

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

💌 Round-up

💻 From My Desk

How to Write the Discussion Section of a Research Manuscript​
Do you struggle with writing the Discussion section of your manuscripts? In this video, I share a clear, flexible framework for writing the Discussion section, so you can move from feeling stuck to confidently articulating your findings, their implications, and their impact on your field.

👓 Reading

​Guidelines and checklists for writing guidelines and checklists: lessons from evidence-based medicine​
"Guidelines and checklists are widely used to augment memory, improve quality and consistency, ensure thoroughness and efficiency, structure repetitive tasks, and to reduce errors, omissions, ambiguities, and misunderstandings. These characteristics make them ideal for reporting the designs, activities, and results of medical research. In fact, EBM [evidence-based medicine] is built around developing and using guidelines and checklists."

​Fifty Years of Retracted Medical Publications From 1975 to 2024: A Comprehensive Analysis of Trends, Reasons, and Countries Using the Retraction Watch Database​
The leading reasons for retraction included data concerns (31.47%), fraud (11.37%), peer review issues (11.21%), referencing issues (7.54%), and ethical violations (7.09%). . . Temporal analysis indicated a steady rise in retractions, with data concerns and fraud doubling typically every 5.5 and 5.2 years."

​Implementing a Unified NIH Funding Strategy to Guide Consistent and Clearer Award Decisions​
"NIH has implemented steps towards a unified strategy that will help guide clearer and consistent funding decisions across all Institutes, Centers, and Offices (ICOs). . . Going forward, ICOs will be considering peer review information in its entirety. NIH ICOs will not rely on funding paylines in developing pay plans. Rather, ICOs will consider these scores in context of their and NIH’s priorities, strategic plans, and budgets. ICO Directors will continue to have the delegated authority to decide what is funded by their ICOs."

🖥️ Watching

​The Science Behind Dramatically Better Conversations​
In this TED talk, journalist and author Charles Duhigg shares that the key to deeply connecting with people is to ask the right kinds of questions. He also shares the three types of conversations, ways to identify what type of conversation is occurring, and how to match that conversation. So in the spirit of his experiment: When was the last time you cried in front of someone?

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal