Interlude
Our weekly Interlude newsletter is packed with the best curated tips, tools, and resources on scientific and medical writing—for free!
Subscribe to the Interlude
Join 2100+ subscribers!
Archive
Interlude: Excavating Language, Text Expanders, and Communicating Medical Numbers
Earlier this week, I came across a reel that struck me. In the reel, author Megha Majumdar shared her thoughts on how writing is difficult because you fail a lot.
"You fail because. . . you can’t find the right words. . . you can't find the words that are true. You start up here, and you have to excavate the language until you get to the truest layer."
Wow! 🤯
I love this idea of excavating language to find the truest layer. That writing is difficult because you have to do the hard work of carefully and systematically unearthing the meaning you intend.
What a fantastic verb choice! This is one for the books.
Now onto this week's round-up...
💌 Round-up
🎉 Featured
Clarity by Design*
I am delighted to share that my colleague, Kelly Schrank, just published a fantastic book about creating comprehensive checklists in medical communication. After attending one of Kelly's seminars in 2019, I was instantly sold of the value of checklists, and I became one of her biggest fans. And I was thrilled when she asked me to be a case study in her book. I highly recommend adding this book to your bookshelf. Get the book*
(*By making a purchase through an affiliate link, I receive a very small commission at no cost to you.)
💻 From My Desk
How to Write Faster with Text Expansion Tools
Do you find yourself writing the same sentences or feedback comments over and over again? When you’re emailing colleagues or editing projects, those repetitive tasks can really add up and waste precious time. In this video, you’ll discover how I write faster and stay consistent using TextExpander (my favorite writing tool!) to save hours every week — and how you can use it to speed up your writing workflow, too.
👓 Reading
The vital role of inclusive publishing in advancing science
"Inclusive journals value null results, preliminary data, and experimental design papers, which promote reproducibility and can hasten innovation. Unlike selective journals, which prioritise ‘high impact’ discoveries, inclusive journals recognise that research does not need to be ground-breaking to be an advancement. . . 50% of research is unpublished. Rather than lacking scientific rigour, most rejections occur because journal editors consider the research to lack significance. A study prepared for the European Commission estimated that in 2018, €26 billion was wasted on duplicated research in Europe alone."
Practice of data sharing plans in clinical trial registrations and concordance between registered and published data sharing plans: a cross-sectional study
". . . more than half of trials published in high-profile journals did not plan to share data in registration, and over 40% were discordant between registration and publication plans. Trials with an intervention of drug were associated with increased odds of registered plans to share data, while COVID-19-related trials were related to lower odds of concordance. Additionally, significant discordance was consistently found for specific data sharing contents, including statistical analysis plans, study protocols, analytic codes, and individual participant data."
🎧 Listening
Five Things to Do When Communicating Medical Numbers – JAMA Clinical Reviews
In this podcast episode, Angela Fagerlin shares how the way you provide numerical information can be helpful for shared decision-making with patients. I especially appreciated her distinction between writing to inform and writing to persuade. You can also read her JAMA Insights article on the topic.
Thank you so much for reading.
Warmly,
Crystal
Interlude: Pops of Color, Pre-Submission Inquiries, and Write-Nots
I've been feeling the weight of what's been happening in science right now. So last week, I took a last-minute road trip with the little guy. It was my first real vacation in 7 years.
About to get on the road with my little guy, Benson.
As I was driving along Highway 22 in Oregon, I saw the destruction of the 2020 Beachie Creek and Lionshead fires that burned nearly 400,000 acres, destroyed more than 1500 structures, and obliterated entire towns. At first, I felt heartbroken. The devastation went on for miles and miles.
But amid the devastation, I saw something beautiful. On the hills, I saw pops of color among the darkness of the trees that had burned. New trees were beginning to grow, and their leaves were turning red, orange, and yellow with the changing season. And I saw homes and businesses rebuilt along the highway.
This sight made me think about the destruction we are seeing in science right now. And it gave me hope that once the firestorm ends, we might see something beautiful grow and rebuild something incredible together.
Now onto this week's round-up...
💌 Round-up
💻 From My Desk
Avoid Desk Rejection: Send a Pre-Submission Inquiry First
Are you unsure if your manuscript is the right fit for a particular journal? Or maybe you have questions about the submission process that aren’t clear from the author instructions? Sending a pre-submission inquiry can be a great strategy to get answers early, avoid desk rejection, and save precious time.
📆 Upcoming
Education Sessions at the 2025 AMWA conference
The 2025 American Medical Writers Association (AMWA) conference is just a few weeks away. I'm thrilled to be presenting in two education sessions this year:
...Oh, and if you're interested in sponsoring a seminar or workshop for your group, just reply to this email. I'd be delighted to exchange ideas!
👓 Reading
Writes and Write-Nots
"AI has blown this world open. . . The result will be a world divided into writes and write-nots. There will still be some people who can write. Some of us like it. But the middle ground between those who are good at writing and those who can’t write at all will disappear. Instead of good writers, ok writers, and people who can’t write, there will just be good writers and people who can’t write. . . So a world divided into writes and write-nots is more dangerous than it sounds. It will be a world of thinks and think-nots."
There’s no “I” in “peer review” – or is there?
Greg: "What do you think of the advice to 'avoid first person'?"
Steve: "I’ve never seen that advice, and it seems very strange! My first inclination is to wonder what problem NSF [National Science Foundation] thinks it’s solving. I can think of two possibilities, but neither convinces me. First, maybe they’re trying to make sure reviews are “objective”. That’s why we wrote science in the passive voice for much of the 20th century. It was foolish there for the same reason it would be foolish here: it would help you pretend you’re objective, but wouldn’t actually make you so! Second, maybe they’re trying to keep reviewers focused on the science rather than the scientists, avoiding ad hominem attacks. But then it seems more productive to ban the second person rather than the first."
Journals and publishers crack down on research from open health data sets
"Last month, PLOS and Frontiers both announced submissions that use data sets such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–run National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which collects diet and health data on more than 130,000 people, will not even be considered, unless the researchers do additional work to confirm their findings. Individual journals are imposing similar restrictions."
Thank you so much for reading.
Warmly,
Crystal
Interlude: Updating Editions, Research Presentations, and AI Assumptions
InI recently started reading the book Getting to Yes. I wondered if learning more about the art of negotiation might give me some new insight on persuasive grant writing to get a “Yes” from reviewers.
In the introduction, the authors talked about how they changed a certain word in the updated edition. They shared how they found that readers were interpreting the original word in the first edition in a way they did not intend. Then the authors shared what their intention was when they wrote the original edition and clarified where they made changes in the updated book.
If you've been around here for a while, you know that my philosophy is to choose words carefully and write with intention. So I admire the authors for choosing a more accurate word to clarify the meaning they intended and then editing the updated edition accordingly.
I think this idea of updating the text is important to consider in scientific and medical writing. We often don't have the ability to update a document once it's been published, at least not without a formal correction or retraction that is often judged negatively. So we need to choose our words carefully before a document is published, or even submitted.
But whether you're updating an edition or revising before submission, the important thing to consider is that you need to choose the best words to convey your intended meaning.
Now onto this week's round-up...
💌 Round-up
💻 From My Desk
10 Things to Stop Saying in Your Research Presentation
When giving a presentation, you need great content, a stellar slide deck, and to keep your audience interested and engaged. In this video, you'll discover 10 common phrases to avoid saying during your presentations and simple strategies for navigating tech mishaps, mastering transitions, and handling unexpected issues with poise.
👓 Reading
The big assumption behind loud opposition to “AI” writing tools – and its two flavours
"I think there’s a simple but very large assumption behind much of it. Sometimes you have to read between the lines to see the assumption; other times it’s stated plainly. It’s this: folks assume that when someone uses an LLM, they’re using it to avoid thinking about the writing they’re doing – rather than using it to help them think about that writing. . . I’ve realized that this assumption comes in two flavours, and it’s worth distinguishing them. There’s what I’ll call a naïve version and a sophisticated version. To be clear, I think that neither version holds; but they fail to hold in different ways."
Research on retractions: A systematic review and research agenda
"Vast majority of the scholarship on retractions involves quantitative overviews, often relying on basic descriptive statistical analyses of retraction trends and patterns. Results clearly demonstrate sensitivities and stigma around retractions mean that there have been very few published qualitative studies, and little attention to the perspectives and experiences of the retracted scholars themselves. Almost no papers have explored the links between the career pressures placed on researchers, the commercial focus of many academic publishers, and the role of ‘paper mills’ in facilitating authorship in indexed journals."
The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly
"Collectively, these findings show that the integrity of the extant scientific record and of future science is being undermined through the shortcomings in the very systems through which scientists infer the trustworthiness of each other’s work. . . We need to create a system that is more robust and systematic and where it is harder to dismiss or bully those providing evidence of fraud."
💬 Quote
“When you truly understand something, you can express it at any level of detail while maintaining coherence. The master can provide the one-sentence version, the paragraph version, and the chapter version, all of which tell the same story at different resolutions. The novice can only repeat what they've memorized at one resolution.” – Shane Parrish
Thank you so much for reading.
Warmly,
Crystal
Interlude: Anniversaries, Peer-Review Bullies, and Creating Shared Understanding
Tomorrow is a very special day...
Redwood Ink is celebrating its 8-year anniversary! 🥳
The past 8 years has been an incredible journey. And it's all because of YOU!
Thank you so much for connecting with me, sharing your perspectives, and engaging in insightful conversations these past 8 years.
As a thank you, and to celebrate this special day for Redwood Ink, I want to share 8 free resources that we offer! 🤩
1️⃣ Transform Your Writing masterclass
2️⃣ Passive Voice Primer course
3️⃣ Inclusive Language Fundamentals course
7️⃣ Science Communicators Supporting Impacted Researchers Database
Thank you for joining me on this journey. I appreciate you!
Now onto this week's round-up...
💌 Round-up
💻 From My Desk
Adapt Your Writing for a Changing Scientific Climate
A few weeks ago, I hosted a masterclass in which I shared some of the things that are changing in science and how you can adapt your writing to meet the current moment. In case you missed it, you can now watch it (and share it!) on YouTube.
👓 Reading
‘Lipstick on a pig’: how to fight back against a peer-review bully
"Peer review is supposed to be critical. But too often, Silbiger says, reviewer feedback crosses the line into an unprofessional realm. Such unacceptable behaviours range from outright bullying of other scientists and personal comments about the authors to mean-spirited or unhelpful remarks without constructive, evidence-based criticism. In...a survey of roughly 1,100 scientists...58% of respondents reported that they had encountered unprofessional peer-review comments. In particular, women, non-binary scientists and people of colour said that the experience had harmed their confidence and productivity and delayed their career advancement."
What your Discussion section isn't
In this article, Stephen Heard shares three things that your Discussion section isn't: a rehash of your results, a chance to shred your own work, and an advertisement for your subfield or research program. "Discussions are, I’ll admit, hard. There are few obvious rules for writing a Discussion; and although there are standard rhetorical elements that appear in most Discussions, they aren’t always obvious or signaled by a standard organization or set of subheads."
🎧 Listening
Wired for Words: A Neuroscientist’s Guide to Influence – Think Fast, Talk Smart podcast
In this episode, Emily Falk, Vice Dean of the Annenberg School of Communication, shares the real secret to persuading others: know what your audience finds relevant, and craft a message that resonates with them. She also shares how we need to understand what other people are thinking and feeling so we can use the power of storytelling to create shared understanding.
💬 Quote
“Most complexity is unnecessary, but we manage it instead of removing it because deletion requires courage that addition doesn't.” – Shane Parrish
Thank you so much for reading.
Warmly,
Crystal
Interlude: Resubmission Transparency, Giftful Feedback, and Collaborative Writing
I came across an idea recently that I thought was really interesting.
When resubmitting a manuscript that's been rejected, authors could send not only the revised manuscript but also the reviewers' comments and the previous version of the manuscript—for full transparency.
I'll admit, I hadn't considered this approach before. On one hand, I can see how this approach shows the authors' integrity, effort to be transparent, and desire to improve the manuscript. On the other hand, I can imagine that authors might fear this approach could set a negative tone for the review and fuel bias among the journal editors and reviewers.
When I think about these two sides, I also think about my values of integrity and transparency in science. So I really like this idea of sending the previous draft and reviewers' comments with a resubmission.
I’d love to hear your perspective. Have you ever tried this strategy? If so, what was your experience?
Now onto this week's round-up...
💌 Round-up
🎉 Featured
Strategies for Turning Fruitless Feedback Lectures into “Giftful” Discussions
Feedback is a valuable tool that can identify strengths and weaknesses for personal and professional growth. But giving and receiving effective feedback can be challenging. In my latest article in the AMWA Journal, I share “giftful” strategies for giving feedback effectively, receiving feedback gracefully, and collaborating on the path forward.
💻 From My Desk
Collaborative Writing Without the Chaos: 5 Tips for Research Teams
Writing with coauthors can be challenging, especially when you need to juggle tight timelines, busy schedules, different working styles, clashing personalities, and inefficient processes. In this video, you’ll learn 5 strategies for writing collaboratively with your colleagues that will make the writing process faster and easier.
👓 Reading
Modernizing Research and Evidence Consensus Definitions: A Food and Drug Administration–National Institutes of Health Collaboration
"The FDA-NIH Modernizing Research and Evidence (MoRE) Glossary Working Group (MGWG) was initiated in April 2023 to evaluate terms inadequately defined within the clinical research community that would benefit from development of a consensus definition. . . The MGWG developed the MoRE Consensus Definitions, comprising 40 clinical research terms and definitions related to innovative clinical study designs that support scientific, patient, clinical, and regulatory decision-making."
🎧 Listening
Why plain English matters in science (and everywhere else), with Anne Greene
In this episode of Grammar Girl, Anne Greene talks about the importance of writing science in plain English. She also discusses why short words are easier to read and how a well-structured story with characters and strong verbs can improve understanding. And if you want know my thoughts on Anne's book, Writing Science in Plain English, check out this video.
🎮 Playing
Connections
I recently discovered the game Connections, which is hosted by The New York Times. I love digging into the meanings of words, and Connections is a fun game to think about those different meanings and make associations between them.
Thank you so much for reading.
Warmly,
Crystal
Interlude: Misunderstood Messages, Lazy Author Syndrome, and Readability Metrics
Have you ever thought that your message was misunderstood?
Many authors share this frustration when a manuscript or grant is rejected. They might think: “The editor doesn’t see why this is important.” “Reviewer 2 misinterpreted what we meant.” “The reviewers just don’t get it.”
These reactions are all too common. But here’s the empowering shift: we can take charge of whether our message is understood.
When we make our message unmistakably clear, we open the door for editors, reviewers, and other readers to truly understand our work.
So the important question is: "How can we write so that our message is easily understood in the way we intend?"
I ask myself this question a lot. And in my Scientific Writing Simplified course, we focus on writing with intention—so the meaning you intend is the meaning your readers take away.
And writing with intention goes beyond science. Whatever the context, intentional writing makes it more likely that your readers take away the meaning you intended.
When have you thought that your message was misunderstood?
Now onto this week's round-up...
💌 Round-up
🎉 Featured
Rethinking Readability Metrics in Medical Communication: Are Common Readability Formulas Still Useful?
I was thrilled when Ben Riggs invited me to write this article for his guest editor issue of the AMWAJournal. In the article, I share what readability really means, why readability is important for all readers, and the benefits and limitations of common readability formulas. I also discuss how readability metrics might be advanced in the future and how humans will continue to be crucial in filling readability gaps.
💻 From My Desk
Is Lazy Author Syndrome Damaging Your Scientific Credibility?
Have you heard of lazy author syndrome? This syndrome has been linked to poor citation practices in research publications. And in this video, I unpack what this syndrome is, what citation habit is associated with it, and the best practices for including citations that reflect your credibility and integrity.
👓 Reading
Analysis of scientific paper retractions due to data problems: Revealing challenges and countermeasures in data management
". . .since 2000, retractions due to data problems have increased significantly (p < 0.001), with the percentage in 2023 exceeding 75%. . . Data problems involve accuracy, reliability, validity, and integrity. There are significant differences (p < 0.001) in subjects, journal quartiles, retraction intervals, and other characteristics between data-related and other retractions. Data-related retractions are more concentrated in high-impact journals. . ."
Is high-volume publishing threatening research integrity?
"The study...found that:
around 10% (20,000 scientists) produced an impossibly high volume of publications
some scientists published hundreds of studies per year, with hundreds or even thousands of new co-authors
approximately 1,000 were early-career scientists with ≤10 years’ academic experience.
Analysis authors, Simone Pilia and Peter Mora, blame the surprising number of hyperprolific authors on a culture that rewards publication quantity through high scores on metrics. They suggest that this not only compromises research quality but leads to some scientists, “particularly the younger ones”, feeling pressured. Pilia and Mora linked the incentive to churn out large quantities of publications with “unethical practices” such as the inclusion of co-authors who have not made adequate contributions to the research. Based on their findings, Pilia and Mora warn that normalising high-volume publishing poses a significant threat to the fundamental academic process."
🧰 Tools
Think.Check.Submit
If you want to check whether you are submitting your research to a trusted journal, Think.Check.Submit provides a concise checklist to help you assess whether or not a publisher is suitable for your research.
…Oh, and if you want a systematic process for choosing the right journal for your manuscript, check out this video.
Thank you so much for reading.
Warmly,
Crystal
Interlude: "Stupid Questions," Excess Vocabulary, and AI Grant Rejections
In my years of teaching, I've noticed that many students will preface their questions with the same phrase:
"This might be a stupid question, but...?"
Here's the truth: there is no such thing as a "stupid question."
First, if you have a question, there is a really good chance that someone else has the same question, and they'll be grateful that you asked.
Second, asking questions out loud takes courage, and every courageous act builds confidence.
And third, questions give important feedback. They show me what's resonating and where I can bring more clarity—which helps me improve and makes our discussions richer.
So keep asking questions. They’re a powerful part of learning.
What questions do you have? Just hit reply and let me know.
Now onto this week's round-up...
💌 Round-up
💻 From My Desk
What I Wish I Knew About Scientific Writing in Grad School
Most graduate programs do not offer formal training in scientific writing, leaving many of us to pick up bad habits and outdated conventions. In this video, I show you how I would use what I've learned in my editing career to transform a short excerpt from my PhD thesis.
...Oh, and if you want to submit an excerpt of your own writing for a similar review video, complete this form.
👓 Reading
When AI rejects your grant proposal: algorithms are helping to make funding decisions
"In this year’s funding round, the algorithms highlighted 122 applications from a total of 714 as having a low chance of success. This decision was checked by two human reviewers, who rescued 46 applications initially flagged for rejection by the AI system. The remaining 76 were rejected. Of the 638 proposals then sent to specialists for peer review, just 34 were funded."
Delving into LLM-assisted writing in biomedical publications through excess vocabulary
"Hundreds of words have abruptly increased their frequency after ChatGPT-like LLMs became available. In contrast to previous shifts in word popularity, the 2023–2024 excess words were not content-related nouns but rather style-affecting verbs and adjectives that LLMs prefer. . . Our analysis of the excess frequency of such LLM-preferred style words suggests that at least 13.5% of 2024 PubMed abstracts were processed with LLMs."
Seven Actions Towards Advancing Patient Authorship and Collaboration in Peer-Reviewed Publications
"Patient involvement in research processes through collaborative workstreams provides authentic insights and perspectives, enhances trust between stakeholders and the patient community, brings balance to authorship groups and adds value and contextualisation to publications. Here, patient advocates, representatives from patient and caregiver communities and pharmaceutical and medical communications professionals propose seven actions to advance patient authorship and collaboration in peer-reviewed publications."
🎓 Training
Finding the Freelance Clients You Deserve
If you’re a medical writer looking to build a stable, successful freelance business that focuses on helping clients, my colleague Lori De Milto is running a 7-week online course with personal coaching. The fall session starts September 22.
Thank you so much for reading.
Warmly,
Crystal
Interlude: Heuristic Tasks, Writing Groups, and the Value of Peer Review
I just started listening to the book Drive, by Daniel Pink. I’m only on Chapter 2 and already fascinated by what he says really drives us in work and life.
Early in the book, he describes the difference between algorithmic and heuristic tasks. Algorithmic tasks follow set instructions to reach one conclusion, like repeating an assembly-line process. Heuristic tasks lack formulas and instructions, so they require creative problem-solving, experimentation, and original thinking. So heuristic tasks require a lot more cognitive effort.
As I was listening to his description, I started to think about how writing and editing are largely heuristic tasks. They require problem-solving, experimentation, and original thinking that take a lot of cognitive effort.
And then I wondered about large-language models (LLMs). I thought about how we are using them to try to turn the heuristic task of writing into an algorithmic task that take less cognitive effort.
And then I wondered: can we really use LLMs to fully transform the heuristic task of writing into an algorithmic task?
In my editing work, I know that any revisions I make are not based on binary or categorical rules, or even on predictive assumptions (which LLMs are largely based on). The revisions I make are based on a number of principles and contextual factors that determine what choice I make in that particular instance. They require problem-solving, experimentation, and original thinking that consider many aspects of the document and the reader rather than just what word might predictably come next.
I’m still mulling over this thought. I’m just barely into the book, and LLMs are evolving fast. But I'm curious about what you think. Do you think we can eventually use LLMs to fully transform the heuristic task of writing into an algorithmic task?
Now onto this week's round-up...
💌 Round-up
💻 From My Desk
7 Reasons Every Scientist Needs a Writing Group
Joining a writing group can transform the often solitary practice of writing into an encouraging, productive, and inspiring experience. In this video, discover 7 compelling reasons why participating in a writing group can help you stay accountable, refine your writing, develop new ideas, and build lasting relationships along your writing journey.
👓 Reading
Analysis of NEJM Abstracts Confirms the Value of Peer Review
". . .59% of abstracts that were submitted in 2022 were improved after peer review as deemed by blinded independent reviewers, improving in 0.9 of four key domains on average. . . Among abstracts that were eventually published in NEJM or other top medical journals with the highest impact factors, 72.1% improved in at least one domain compared with 48.3% of those published in other journals. . . Additionally, 61.5% of the 445 abstracts published in non-open access journals had "substantive improvements" versus 39.2% of the 51 abstracts published in open access journals.
Honest yet unacceptable research practices: when research becomes a health risk
"To reduce the incidence of honest yet unacceptable research practices, best evidence suggests researchers and organisational leaders must address aspects of individual and interpersonal behaviour and working cultures:
Take a preventative over a punitive approach to poor practices.
Reduce both real and perceived individual performance pressure, notably pressure to publish more papers over a relatively short reporting period.
Support failure positively and educate and encourage publication of negative findings in journals.
Allocate and support teams to invest sufficient time in research work.
Encourage people to work more in teams.
Foster teamwork that is free from unhealthy competition and unrealistic expectations."
🖥️ Watching
PSA: If you drop acronyms like everyone’s in on the secret… they’re not.
In this Instagram post, Simon Sinek shares why he won't allow acronyms in his company unless they are standard acronyms because they can make people feel dumb or left out of conversations. His advice is just as relevant for our writing, because acronyms can make readers feel the same way.
🎓 Training
Freelance Fast Track for Medical Writers – September 8, 2025
If you are a freelance medical writer who wants to learn the art of getting great clients, don't miss this free masterclass with my colleague Hope Lafferty. She is super knowledgeable and gives entertaining trainings that are sure to make you laugh.
Thank you so much for reading.
Warmly,
Crystal
Interlude: What You're Carrying, Conflicts of Interest, and AI Standards
I recently heard a story that really resonated with me. I can't verify that it's true, but the story still sends a powerful message.
————
A Buddhist monk asked his students a question: “If you're carrying a cup of coffee and someone bumps into you, why did you spill the coffee?”
Every student said that it was because someone bumped into them.
Then the monk said, “No. The reason why you spilled the coffee is because that's what you were carrying in your cup. If you were carrying water, you would have spilled water."
Then he said something profound.
“Whenever life shakes you, whatever you're carrying is going to spill out.”
So if you're carrying fear, jealousy, anger, or greed—that's what's going to spill out.
But if you're carrying love, compassion, kindness, or empathy—that's what's going to spill out.
————
I think the lesson also applies to our writing.
If you start the writing process with fear, overwhelm, and dread, that is what will spill into your writing.
But if you start the writing process with clarity, confidence, and excitement, that is what will spill into your writing.
What are you carrying into your writing today?
Now onto this week's round-up...
💌 Round-up
💻 From My Desk
How to Write a Conflicts of Interest Statement for a Manuscript
Are you wondering how to write a conflicts of interest or competing interests statement for a manuscript? This video unpacks how to write a clear and effective conflicts of interest statement for your manuscript submission. Discover what counts as a conflict of interest, why disclosure matters, common mistakes to avoid, and practical examples of conflicts of interest statements.
📆 Upcoming
Adapt Your Writing for a Changing Scientific Climate – September 4, 2025 @ 11 am PT
Join me for a free live masterclass, where you’ll get insight on what to consider in the changing scientific climate, strategies for optimizing your communication in the current moment, and a roadmap to adapt your writing—no matter what happens next.
👓 Reading
Evaluating the Detection Accuracy of AI-Generated Content in Plastic Surgery: A Comparative Study of Medical Professionals and AI Tools
“Medical professionals and AI detection tools struggle to reliably identify AI-generated content. While AI tools demonstrated high discriminatory power, they often misclassified human-written passages. These findings highlight the need for improved methods to protect the integrity of scientific writing and prevent false plagiarism claims.”
AI’s hyperbole ‘making journal abstracts harder to read’
"Studying more than 820,000 abstracts of articles published on the arXiv preprint platform over the past decade, researchers…found a clear shift in the lexicon of scholarly papers since November 2022, when ChatGPT-3.5 was released – including a sharp increase in the use of certain nouns and adverbs preferred by large language models (LLMs). . .the ‘significant decrease in…readability indicates that abstracts have fewer connecting words and are becoming more difficult to read’”
We Need AI Standards for Scholarly Publishing: A NISO Workshop Report
“The report identified more than two dozen potential projects that could be undertaken to address various issues related to AI tools and systems in our community. The participants also prioritized these ideas, but wider feedback is also being sought. Among the ideas that were highlighted as efforts the community should advance included:
Usage tracking and auditing to assess impact…
Communicating to technology companies about structure of scientific information…
Attribution and provenance standards for AI outputs…
Standardized licensing models/Legal terminology for AI usage…
Transparency and disclosure frameworks…
Interoperable metadata and access infrastructure…
Versioning and updating of AI training data…
AI-enhanced accessibility deployment guidance…”
💬 Quote
“In the middle of every difficulty lies opportunity.” – Albert Einstein
Thank you so much for reading.
Warmly,
Crystal
Interlude: Illusion of Prestige, Misleading Numbers, and Simultaneous Submissions
Over the years, I've noticed an interesting pattern: when writing papers, we can mistake complexity for insight.
We've all seen (or written) papers that are wordy, use longer words than necessary, and bury ideas in convoluted phrasing.
In many cases, this style of writing comes from the desire to show expertise and depth. But this desire can cause us to associate complexity with prestige.
But complexity only gives the illusion of prestige.
Real prestige is rooted in wisdom—in the quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgment. And that includes our writing.
So to show real prestige in your writing, distill the simple from the complex so your insight shines brightest and connects with readers.
Now onto this week's round-up...
💌 Round-up
💻 From My Desk
How to Remember What You Read
Have you read a book only to forget the key insights later? Or have you felt frustrated while searching pages for a memorable passage you read? In this video, you'll learn my practical system to recall, synthesize, and easily locate ideas from any book. Whether you’re reading for study, personal growth, or professional development, this system will help you make each book a lasting resource that you can refer to again and again.
📆 Upcoming
Adapt Your Writing for a Changing Scientific Climate – September 4, 2025 @ 11 am PT
Join me for a free live masterclass, where you’ll get insight on what to consider in the changing scientific climate, strategies for optimizing your communication in the current moment, and a roadmap to adapt your writing—no matter what happens next.
👓 Reading
Leaving out numbers in medical communication may mislead patients
"…a team of researchers and clinicians explained that patients often overestimate risk estimates, like possible side effects or medical conditions, when given only verbal descriptions. They encourage doctors not to shy away from including numbers, offering a list of five science-backed tricks on how to make those numbers count."
Simultaneous submissions without simultaneous peer review
"The proposed method…allows a researcher to submit to multiple journals at the same time—increasing the chances of getting speedier initial journal interest and allowing researchers to choose between interested journals—but then avoids overlapping review by requiring the researcher to give the right to proceed to peer review (and eventual publication) to only one journal. The proposed method is meant to work side-by-side with, not replace, the single submission system."
Could a novelty indicator improve science?
". . . I’ve been stumped by the fact that there are no good ways to measure novelty. Without good indicators, researchers can’t assess the prevalence of original papers or their value in scientific progress. . .That’s why the UK Metascience Unit has partnered with the non-profit organization RAND Europe; the Sussex Sci-ence Policy Research Unit; and the publisher Elsevier, to launch MetaNIC. . . a competition to produce and validate indicators for scientific novelty in academic papers. Running until November, MetaNIC is open to researchers all around the world. Participants will design novelty assessments and test them over a set of 50,000 research papers, drawn from many fields."
🎓 Training
Realign Your CME Writing Path for Growth – September 3, 2025
If you’re a medical writer curious about continuing medical education, this free event is a gem. My colleague Alexandra Howson is hosting a live online masterclass to help you build a sustainable, purpose-driven CME writing—with tools that actually support growth.
Thank you so much for reading.
Warmly,
Crystal
Interlude: Plot Twists, Manuscript Story Structure, and Open-Access Publishing Fees
Rejection is common in scientific and medical writing. If you've submitted manuscripts or grants, you've likely faced rejection—sometimes more than once. And no matter how many times it happens, it's never easy.
I think I can safely say that we’ve all been there: the sting in your chest, the feelings of frustration and devastation, the “Maybe I’m not cut out for this” whisper.
You might even believe that the rejection is the end of the story.
But what if we reframe that story—as a plot twist.
Plot twists aren't endings. They're moments when the story gets interesting.
When you reframe rejection as a story development, you can spark curiosity and possibility about what comes next. You can start looking at the next chapter rather than dwelling on the previous one.
The end of one chapter becomes the start of another.
So the next time you face rejection, turn "My paper got rejected. What now?" into "Plot twist: my paper got rejected. What's next?"
Same event. Different momentum.
Now onto this week's round-up...
💌 Round-up
💻 From My Desk
The Built-In Story Structure of Research Papers
Did you know that original research papers have a built-in story structure that helps you tell a compelling narrative? In this video, you’ll learn how the classic IMRaD format (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) of original research manuscripts maps directly onto a common story structure. And you’ll discover a handy framework to remember the five essential elements of a story in research manuscripts.
👓 Reading
What scientists need to know about sharing—and protecting—their published work
"NIH’s policy will require that a peer-reviewed version of any paper resulting from agency-funded research be available in a free public repository upon publication—a shift from a previous policy allowing a 12-month delay. . .paid open access typically comes with a Creative Commons (CC) license that delineates how others can use the content of the paper. The most common, dubbed CC-BY (referring to “by attribution”), allows wide reuse, provided users credit the author. Other variants can restrict commercial use, or any adaptations of the work."
Seeing the full picture: the RIVA-C checklist for research infographics
"The full checklist comprises 10 items across 3 categories: (1) study characteristics, (2) results, and (3) conclusions/takeaway message—each accompanied by detailed explanations and examples to aid practical implementation. The checklist was piloted over a 6-month period to evaluate its clarity, relevance, and usability."
NIH Proposes Five Strategies to Cap Open-Access Publishing Fees
"The proposal outlines five options for reducing costs, the first one being eliminating all publication costs. Another option would be to set a limit on allowable costs per publication, and a third option would do the same but increase the average amount by about $1,000 to compensate peer reviewers. A fourth and fifth option would involve setting a limit on the total amount of an award that can be spent on publication costs, or to do that and also limit the per-publication cost."
🖥️ Watching
Harvard Professor Explains The Rules of Writing — Steven Pinker
In this episode, Steven Pinker, author of The Sense of Style, shares his thoughts on why there is so much bad writing, what makes writing harder than speaking, why academics are terrible writers, why AI writing feels so bland, and so much more. Although you can also listen to the podcast episode, I highly recommend watching the video so that you can see Steven's joy as he shares his thoughts.
Thank you so much for reading.
Warmly,
Crystal
Interlude: Noticing Good Writing, Short Words, and Scientific Fraud
How do you know if writing is good?
This might seem like a loaded question. But I think there's a simple answer. And it relates to cooking.
How do you know if cooking is good?
When you taste a meal, you'll notice if it has too little or too much salt. But would you notice if the meal has the right amount of salt?
Likely not. I have yet to hear someone say, "Wow! This meal has the perfect amount of salt!"
More likely, you won't even notice how much salt is in the food. In other words, cooking is good when you don't notice the salt. You focus on the meal.
Similarly, if writing is good, you don't notice the writing. You focus on the content.
Think about your favorite novel. As you were reading it, did you notice the writing? Or did you get enveloped in the story and what was happening with the characters?
Now think about a scientific manuscript (or other document) that you read. As you were reading it, did you notice the writing? Or did you get enveloped in the information and what was happening with the data and interpretations?
When writing is bad, you notice how the writing can be improved. When writing is good, you don't notice the writing at all.
Now onto this week's round-up...
💌 Round-up
💻 From My Desk
How Short Words Boost Clarity in Scientific Writing
Dense, complex language can burden your readers with a cognitive load and make it harder for them to understand your writing. In this video, you’ll learn how short, simple words can boost clarity and readability, without offending readers.
📆 Upcoming
Managing Flow: A Framework for Connecting Ideas and Guiding Readers – August 13, 2025 @ 10 am Pacific Time
I was delighted when the Scientific Editors Network (ScENe) invited me to speak to its members about flow in writing. During the webinar, I'll be sharing valuable writing principles to help create a smooth flow that guides readers through the content, builds on their knowledge, and keeps them engaged in the writing. You must be a member of ScENe to join.
...Oh, and if you're interested in inviting me to speak about flow (or another topic), hit reply and let me know. I'd be delighted to speak for your team, organization, or event.
👓 Reading
The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly
". . . we demonstrate through case studies that i) individuals have cooperated to publish papers that were eventually retracted in a number of journals, ii) brokers have enabled publication in targeted journals at scale, and iii), within a field of science, not all subfields are equally targeted for scientific fraud." I also recommend reading this blog post that complements the article.
A study section chair's experience with the new Simplified Review Framework
In this LinkedIn post, a study section chair offers four recommendations for researchers to consider for reviews that use the new Simplified Review Framework: (1) write for a general audience, (2) significance is the most important review criterion, (3) be thoughtfully responsive when resubmitting, and (4) keep submitting proposals. This short post is well worth the read.
Modernizing Research and Evidence Consensus Definitions: A Food and Drug Administration–National Institutes of Health Collaboration
"The MoRE Consensus Definitions are intended to facilitate effective communication about clinical research and enable transparency around innovative clinical study designs. This publication makes available the glossary developed through this collaboration and serves as an accessible resource for the clinical research enterprise."
💬 Quote
“As far as he can achieve it, readability is as important for the scientific writer as it is for the novelist.” – Donald O. Hebb
Thank you so much for reading.
Warmly,
Crystal
Interlude: Daily Baselines, Communicating Science, and Publication Fees
Several years ago, I tried the Pomodoro technique. Although I found the technique great in theory, I didn't find that it worked well for me in practice. I often need 15 to 20 minutes to really get into the zone of editing.
Then this post suggested that you find a baseline time each day and use that time for the technique. For example, on a particular day, if you find that you lose focus after 10 minutes, you only study (or work) for 10 minutes at a time that day. Then the next day, you find a new baseline time for that day.
I am intrigued by this strategy. I like that it considers our daily fluctuations in focus and productivity.
What do you think? Do you use the Pomodoro method? If so, do you use the standard baseline of 25 minutes, or a different baseline? Hit reply and let me know.
Now onto this week's round-up...
💌 Round-up
💻 From My Desk
Practical Advice for Communicating Science in All Formats
Are you looking for a book that will give you a solid foundation of all types of science communication? In this review of The Chicago Guide to Communicating Science by Scott Montgomery, you'll learn about a must-have resource for anyone looking to communicate science clearly in any format and to any audience.
👓 Reading
Communicating science: The “significance” of statistics
"How can scientific writers clearly communicate the 'significance' of their statistics? First, describe scientific importance before statistical significance, to ensure that those other, often overlooked, aspects are considered. . .Second, always accompany “significance/significant” with a modifying term – 'statistical' or 'scientific.' Even better, replace 'significant' with other words or phrases that convey the specific aspect of “importance” being described."
NIH to crack down on excessive publisher fees for publicly funded research
"NIH will introduce a cap on allowable publication costs starting in Fiscal Year (FY) 2026, ensuring that publication fees remain reasonable across the research ecosystem. The policy aims to curb excessive APCs [article processing charges] and ensure the broad dissemination of research findings without unnecessary financial barriers."
BTAA, Springer Nature announce first unlimited open access publishing agreement
"This OPA [open publishing agreement] deal offers all authors across participating institutions unlimited open access publishing in Springer’s hybrid journals portfolio — with no fees, no caps, no limits and no hassle — while at the same time uniformly expanding access to those titles regardless of past local subscriptions."
💬 Quote
"As ideas are preserved and communicated by means of words, it necessarily follows that we cannot improve the language of any science, without at the same time improving the science itself; neither can we, on the other hand, improve a science without improving the language or nomenclature which belongs to it." – Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier
Thank you so much for reading.
Warmly,
Crystal
Interlude: Framing for Reviewers, Overlooking Problems, and AI in NIH Grants
Earlier this week, this post landed in my feed. In the video, Matt shares 5 ways to market a Snickers bar. Same candy bar, but different packaging to appeal to different audiences.
This tailored packaging is also an important strategy for writing grants. Different grant agencies have different review panels, so you need to package—or write—your grant for that particular panel.
For example, at the NIH, study sections (as they stand today) are experts in your field. So you can use more technical language and frame how the project will advance the field. At a foundation, the review panel will likely have experts, and it may also have patients, donors, or other members of the public. So you need to write with more accessible language and frame how the project will be meaningful to everyone on the review panel.
Same project, but different packaging to appeal to different audiences.
Or, as I like to say, it's all about the framing.
So the next time you write a grant, do some research on the agency and anticipated reviewers, and frame the project in a way that appeals to them.
Now onto this week's round-up...
💌 Round-up
💻 From My Desk
10 Strategies to Edit Smarter and Spot Writing Mistakes
Have you been looking at your draft for so long that you can no longer see the mistakes, gaps in logic, and other problems in the text? In this video, you’ll learn 10 strategies to help you stop overlooking the problems in your writing, see your text with fresh eyes, and craft more effective scientific and medical documents.
👓 Reading
Supporting Fairness and Originality in NIH Research Applications
”NIH will not consider applications that are either substantially developed by AI, or contain sections substantially developed by AI, to be original ideas of applicants. If the detection of AI is identified post award, NIH may refer the matter to the Office of Research Integrity to determine whether there is research misconduct while simultaneously taking enforcement actions..."
"NIH will only accept six new, renewal, resubmission, or revision applications from an individual Principal Investigator/Program Director or Multiple Principal Investigator for all council rounds in a calendar year. This policy applies to all activity codes except T activity codes and R13 Conference Grant Applications."
What your Results section isn’t
In this article, Stephen Heard shares three things that "your Results section isn’t. Or at least, some things it isn’t. Or at least, some things it shouldn’t be". These things include: the story of your research life, a do-over for the way you organize things, and a chance to try out cool new data visualization.
What do the public think of preprints?
“Recent studies suggest that, even when provided with a definition, the general public remains unclear on what a preprint is. The public’s perception of research credibility depends more on the broader framing of research findings than on disclosure of preprint status. . .These findings suggest that disclosure of preprint status alone may not be enough to build public understanding. Dr Alice Fleerackers, co-author of both studies, argues that the scientific community must also do more to help the public understand how peer review works.”
💬 Quote
“It all starts with being curious and humble; putting yourself in the shoes of your audience and going on the journey with them.” – Samara Johansson
Thank you so much for reading.
Warmly,
Crystal
Interlude: Blooming Drafts, Flawed Advice, and Linguistic Shifts
Earlier this week, I was walking my dog and stopping to smell the roses along the way. I grew up with lots of rose bushes in the yard, and my mom would make rose petal jelly, so I always enjoy the nostalgia of smelling a fresh blossom.
After smelling a particularly fragrant rose, I thought about how developing a draft relates to growing roses. I think the process is quite similar.
The central message is like the seed. Just like the seed is essential for a rose bush to grow, the central message is the essence of the story in the draft.
The outline is like the roots. We can't see the roots grow beneath the surface, but we know they are important to create a solid foundation for the rose bush to grow. Similarly, an outline creates a solid foundation for a story before we can really see the text take shape into a draft.
The first draft is like the stems of the rose bush. The stems grow up from the foundation of roots, and we can start to see a bush emerge. Similarly, a first draft is when the outline gets formed into paragraphs, and we can start to see the draft emerge.
The subsequent drafts are like the leaves of the rose bush. Just like the leaves show signs of liveliness, the refinements made during later drafts start to bring the text to life.
Then the final draft is like the rose. For the rose bush, all the steps to this point culminate to form a beautiful rose. For the draft, all the steps to this point culminate to form an impactful draft—the draft blooms.
I love this idea of a blooming draft. I think it helps to reframe writing from a daunting task to a beautiful blossoming.
Now onto this week's round-up...
💌 Round-up
💻 From My Desk
Why "The Best" Scientific Writing Advice Fails (and What Works Instead)
Many scientists and clinicians are advised to mimic what they read in the literature. Although this advice is well-intended, it has fundamental flaws that contribute to poor scientific and medical writing. In this video, you’ll learn why mimicking published papers is not the path to clear, impactful writing—and what you should do instead.
👓 Reading
Examining linguistic shifts in academic writing before and after the launch of ChatGPT: a study on preprint papers
"…the results indicate a significant increase in the proportion of LLM-preferred words in abstracts, revealing the widespread influence of LLMs on academic writing. Additionally, we observed an increase in lexical complexity and sentiment in the abstracts, but a decrease in syntactic complexity, suggesting that LLMs introduce more new vocabulary and simplify sentence structure. However, the significant decrease in cohesion and readability indicates that abstracts have fewer connecting words and are becoming more difficult to read.”
False authorship: an explorative case study around an AI-generated article published under my name
"The findings highlight the risks posed by AI-generated and misattributed research articles, which threaten the credibility of academic publishing. Ways to mitigate these issues include strengthening identity verification mechanisms for DOIs and ORCIDs, enhancing AI detection methods, and reforming research assessment practices. Without effective countermeasures, the unchecked growth of AI-generated content in scientific literature could severely undermine trust in scholarly communication.”
Fraudulent studies are undermining the reliability of systematic reviews: on the prevalence of problematic images in preclinical depression studies
"…peer-reviewed reports with problematic images are common within the field of preclinical depression studies. We believe that a majority of these reports had been, in part or completely, fabricated or falsified…The consequences of our findings are concerning. Any preclinical systematic review and meta-analytical investigation carried out in this field will potentially be misled by fraudulent studies.”
💬 Quote
“Tell the readers a story! Because without a story, you are merely using words to prove you can string them together in logical sentences.” –Anne McCaffrey
Thank you so much for reading.
Warmly,
Crystal
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
Interlude: Word Limit Dichotomy, Authorship Grids, and the Evolution of Scientific Writing
Word limits are a common challenge in scientific and medical writing. And they create an interesting dichotomy.
Many authors dread word limits because they have to do the hard work of concisely expressing their thoughts and ideas in a certain number of words.
However, most readers appreciate word limits because concise writing is clearer and faster to read, which respects their time and attention.
And time and attention are our greatest assets.
So the next time you face a word limit, think of the challenge as an opportunity—not only to share your knowledge and ideas, but also to show respect for your readers.
Now onto this week's round-up...
💌 Round-up
💻 From My Desk
How to Avoid Authorship Issues in Publications
Are you tired of managing authorship issues for your scientific and medical manuscripts? Are you frustrated with last-minute authorship decisions that spark conflict among your team? In this video, you’ll learn a clear, objective, and collaborative strategy to prevent authorship debates before they start—helping your team work together smoothly and collaboratively from day one.
👓 Reading
The evolution of scientific writing: an analysis of 20 million abstracts over 70 years in health and medical science
This article is a must read! "This historical understanding provides insight into our past writing cultures, how they have changed, and where we stand as science communicators today. We found that scientists are increasingly using writing components that reduce cognitive load and improve reader understanding. Despite these positive efforts we found that many scientists still feel a need to adhere to 'The Official Style' that falls back on dense and difficult prose. We advocate for more accessible science writing so that its discoveries not only encourage inter-disciplinary research, but are also spread across wider society as part of the sharing of knowledge."
Why aren’t more journals publishing plain language summaries?
"73% of journals surveyed did not allow author-submitted PLS [plain language summaries], citing reasons such as a perceived lack of reader or author demand, lack of relevance to journal content, and insufficient resources. . .the survey highlights an ongoing need for greater standardisation, more consistent peer review, and improved visibility of PLS. It also revealed that some respondents were unsure of their own journal’s PLS policies, underscoring the need for better internal communication and training."
🖥️ Watching
Do you think he’s guilty?
In this reel, @englishenjoyed shares a fun skit on the ambiguity of "biweekly" and how language "is a marvelous tool of deception."
💬 Quote
"'Over the past fifty years or so', wrote David Mermin in 1990, scientists have allowed the conventions of expression available to them to become entirely too confining. The insistence on bland impersonality and the widespread indifference to anything like the display of a unique human author in scientific exposition, have not only transformed the reading of most scientific papers into an act of tedious drudgery, but have also deprived scientists of some powerful tools for enhancing their clarity in communicating matters of great complexity. Scientists wrote beautifully through the nineteenth century and into the early twentieth. But somewhere after that, coincident with the explosive growth of research, the art of writing science suffered a grave setback, and the stultifying convention descended that the best scientific prose should sound like a non-human author addressing a mechanical reader." –Iain McGilchrist
Thank you so much for reading.
Warmly,
Crystal
Interlude: Unworthy Hacks, Author Order, and Image Quality
Most people love a good life or time-saving hack. I certainly do. But I recently learned about one that made me rethink the value of hacks.
Last week, I was scrolling on Instagram and saw a post about a different way to tie your shoes. As an undergrad, I majored in math and was curious about topology and knot theory, so I was intrigued by the post.
As I watched the video, I thought, "How cool is this?! And if it saves me time, then maybe I'll change the way I tie my shoes!"
Then at the end of the video, the mathematician said, "you get the exact same knot in a third of the time, which at the end of your life will have probably saved you like five minutes."
Five minutes over a lifetime? I'm sure I'll burn more than five minutes figuring out how to tie that knot and then retraining my brain to tie my shoes the new way.
Not worth it.
I think the same can be true for other hacks that we discover.
So when you learn about a new hack, consider it carefully. It might be cool, but it also might not be worth your effort.
Now onto this week's round-up...
💌 Round-up
🎉 Featured
The Key Elements of an Introduction Section of a Research Manuscript Authors
I'm delighted to share my latest publication in the AMWA Journal. In the article, I share the key elements of the Introduction section of a research manuscript. These key elements give readers context, highlight the significance, explain the rationale, define the relevance, state the study question, and introduce the approach.
💻 From My Desk
How to Order Authors in a Research Manuscript
Struggling to decide the order of authors for your scientific or medical manuscript? Curious about the significance of the first, last, and corresponding author positions? In this second video of the authorship series, you’ll learn about the different author positions in a byline, why these positions matter, and practical strategies for choosing the order of authors.
👓 Reading
Do articles with multiple corresponding authorships have a citation advantage? A double machine learning analysis approach
"Our results of the case study based on the field of “Chemistry & Medicine” demonstrate that, when controlling for other variables, articles with multiple corresponding authors indeed tend to receive more citations than those with a single corresponding author. In addition, the citation advantage is more pronounced when multiple corresponding authors are from different institutions. However, an excessive number of corresponding authors may weaken the citation advantage."
The do’s and don’ts of scientific image editing
"Whereas scientists receive extensive training on how to collect data, less work goes into teaching them how to showcase the information in publications, presentations and grant applications. . .Some journals and scientific societies are now developing guidelines to help researchers to present their hard-won data well while maintaining image integrity. . . But not all institutions and small journals have the means to educate researchers, much less check every manuscript for image quality. Several organizations are therefore developing further guidelines and attempting to align the standards that publishers and scientific societies are expecting researchers to use."
🎧 Listening
How Science Communication Can Step Up Amid Federal Cuts – NPR Science Friday
In this episode, Felice Frankel, a science photographer and research scientist at MIT, shares her thoughts on why researchers need to get training in, support with, and encouragement to communicate their work to the public. I found myself saying "Yes!" multiple times while listening to this episode. I highly recommend it.
Thank you so much for reading.
Warmly,
Crystal
Interlude: 150th Edition, Authorship Series, and Publishing Peer Reviews
Earlier this week, I was reflecting on this newsletter, and I was curious about how many editions I've sent out. So I counted them.
I was surprised to find that this week marks the 150th edition of the Interlude! 🎉
I know that you may have been reading this newsletter since the beginning, or you may be reading this newsletter for the first time. But no matter how long you've been subscribed, I'm grateful for every moment that you spend with me.
Thank you so much for sharing your time and attention with me every week. I appreciate you.
Now onto this week's round-up...
💌 Round-up
💻 From My Desk
Who Really Qualifies for Authorship in Research
Are you unsure about who qualifies for authorship and who should be acknowledged in your scientific or medical manuscript? In this video, you’ll get a practical guide that covers who qualifies for authorship, what are common unethical practices to avoid, and how to recognize all contributors, including support from AI tools. This video is the first in a three-part series covering everything you need to know about authorship in scientific and medical publishing.
👓 Reading
Nature looks to open up 'black box' of science by publishing peer review files
"...the journal announced it would include peer review files with the papers it publishes, offering access to once behind-the-scenes processes in which reviewers critique scientific papers and authors respond with changes. . . Nature’s new process will make the referees’ reports and authors’ responses public by default. The journal’s move comes at a time when trust in science has dipped."
The Use of Person-Centered Language in Scientific Research Articles Focused on Psychosis
"Our analysis of recent literature published on disorders of psychosis found that most of the screened articles contained stigmatized language, such as labeling or emotional terms in describing the people diagnosed with the conditions. Previous research has found associations between stigmatizing language and negative attitudes toward those individuals among healthcare providers."
…Oh, and if you’re interested in learning more about stigmatizing language, check out my Inclusive Language Fundamentals course—for free!
A.I. Might Take Your Job. Here Are 22 New Ones It Could Give You.
"...in many fields where the work product is written text, you aren’t just being paid for the words you submit. You’re being paid to be responsible for them: the facts, the concepts, the fairness, the phrasing. This article is running with my byline, which means that I personally stand behind what you’re reading..."
💬 Quote
"Good writers are those who keep the language efficient. That is to say, keep it accurate, keep it clear." – Ezra Pound
Thank you so much for reading.
Warmly,
Crystal
Interlude: Autostereograms, CONSORT Diagrams, and Publication Extenders
When I was a kid, Magic Eye books were really popular. These books contain autostereograms, which are 2D images that can create the optical illusion of a 3D scene (check out these examples).
I was fascinated by the idea of autostereograms. But no matter how hard I tried, I couldn’t see the 3D images.
I tried for decades. Yes, decades.
I used every trick I could find. I’d press the page against my nose and slowly move the book away from my face. I’d try crossing my eyes and tilting the pages. I'd ask friends for tips and to guide me through their process.
Nothing worked.
I thought I was just "bad" at it. After feeling disappointed so many times, I gave up.
And then, many years later, I discovered the problem.
I needed glasses to help correct my depth perception.
I still remember the day I got my glasses. I brought them home and immediately started looking at autostereograms. I was so delighted to finally see the 3D images.
Why am I sharing this story?
Because what you see as a limitation or flaw may be a solvable problem.
And sometimes you don't need to put in more effort. You just need a different perspective or the right tool.
Now onto this week's round-up...
💌 Round-up
💻 From My Desk
How to Create a CONSORT Flow Diagram in PowerPoint
Are you tired of building CONSORT flow diagrams from scratch or struggling with clunky templates that you found on the web? In this video, you’ll learn a faster and easier way to create CONSORT flow diagrams for clinical studies using PowerPoint. And you can download a handy template to help you get started!
👓 Reading
Publication Extenders: Yes, They Are Worth the Effort
"While some of the research cited is a few years’ old, as new evidence is published and presented, the conclusions remain the same: publication extenders play an important role in increasing the impact and reach of scientific articles, communicating research more effectively and making it more accessible to all audiences and, as a result, combatting the mis- and that is so readily available online."
ICMJE Ceases List of Journals Claiming to Follow Its Recommendations
"The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) previously provided a list...of journals that have contacted the ICMJE to request listing as a journal that follows the ICMJE's recommendations...Unfortunately,...many of the listed journals do not actually adhere to the ICMJE recommendations. The inability of the ICMJE to verify the accuracy of this list combined with the increase in predatory scholarly publishing practices contributed to the committee's April 2025 decision to cease maintenance of this list."
SPIRIT 2025 Statement: Updated Guideline for Protocols of Randomized Trials
"The process led to the addition of 2 new protocol items, revision to 5 items, deletion/merger of 5 items, and integration of key items from other relevant reporting guidelines. Notable changes include a new open-science section, additional emphasis on the assessment of harms and description of interventions and comparators, and a new item on how patients and the public will be involved in trial design, conduct, and reporting."
🎮 Playing
Wordosis
Do you play Wordle? Wordosis is just like Wordle, but with a medical spin! You get 6 attempts to guess a medical word.
Thank you so much for reading.
Warmly,
Crystal