Prof Lennart Nacke, PhD Profile picture
Sep 3, 2022 β€’ 8 tweets β€’ 29 min read β€’ Read on X
Sure, IMRaD is a scientist's ballgame, but have you heard of IRMReDiLiFuConcR?

That's how we roll at #chi2023.

Here's what's in that tongue-twisting paper structure:
πŸ§΅β†“
Introduction:

β†’ What is known?
β†’ What is unknown?
β†’ How and why should we fill the gap?
β†’ Why should people care?

Use @Grammarly @HemingwayApp @languagetool @Writefullapp @TheQuillBot @ReadableHQ @whoisjenniai when editing this section (and the rest of your paper) to rock.
@Grammarly @HemingwayApp @languagetool @Writefullapp @TheQuillBot @ReadableHQ @whoisjenniai Related work:

β†’ Prepare the state-of-the-art you will talk about later in your discussion.

Use tools like @paperpile, @pure_suggest, @ConnectedPapers, @RsrchRabbit, @scite, @scholarcy, @elicitorg, @LitmapsApp, @sci_hub_, @Science_Open to make this easy for yourself.
@Grammarly @HemingwayApp @languagetool @Writefullapp @TheQuillBot @ReadableHQ @whoisjenniai @paperpile @pure_suggest @ConnectedPapers @RsrchRabbit @scite @scholarcy @elicitorg @LitmapsApp @sci_hub_ @Science_Open Methods:

β†’ What did you do?

β†’ Present all specifics.

Write this first!

Nothing like @NotionHQ to keep track of things while you run your experiments.
@Grammarly @HemingwayApp @languagetool @Writefullapp @TheQuillBot @ReadableHQ @whoisjenniai @paperpile @pure_suggest @ConnectedPapers @RsrchRabbit @scite @scholarcy @elicitorg @LitmapsApp @sci_hub_ @Science_Open @NotionHQ @rstudio @jamovistats @JASPStats @figma @inkscape Discussion, Limitations, Future Work:

β†’ Meaning and implications of this research.
β†’ How do the results fill the gap?
β†’ Where do your results not apply?
β†’ What should we do next?

Check my last thread for an in-depth dive into how to write a discussion section.
@Grammarly @HemingwayApp @languagetool @Writefullapp @TheQuillBot @ReadableHQ @whoisjenniai @paperpile @pure_suggest @ConnectedPapers @RsrchRabbit @scite @scholarcy @elicitorg @LitmapsApp @sci_hub_ @Science_Open @NotionHQ @rstudio @jamovistats @JASPStats @figma @inkscape Conclusion: 5Cs

β†’ Why did your advancement matter?

1. Close the loop.

2. Conclude. Show what your final position is.

3. Clarify. Why it's relevant.

4. Concern. For whom does it matter?

5. Consequences. End by noting in one final sentence why this is of such importance.

β€’ β€’ β€’

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
γ€€

Keep Current with Prof Lennart Nacke, PhD

Prof Lennart Nacke, PhD Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @acagamic

Jul 6
In 20 years, I've published 300+ papers: 41k+ citations.

It all started with just 3 simple writing tips per section.

The best researchers know this secret.

Great papers tell great stories that keep readers hooked. How?

Here's my academic storytelling framework: Best-paper winning academic storytelling framework.
INTRODUCTION
Start with curiosity, not conclusions.

Your introduction should make readers think:
I've never considered that.

β€’ Contrast an intriguing fact to existing work in your field
β€’ Introduce a thought-provoking problem
β€’ Focus on a little-known perspective

This creates immediate engagement.
RELATED WORK
Position your work as the missing piece.

Your related work section isn't a boring literature review.
It's a dinner party where you're introducing the guests.

β€’ Make your work relevant to ongoing debates
β€’ Relate existing research gaps to problems
β€’ Show opposing viewpoints

This builds anticipation for your solution.
Read 10 tweets
Jul 2
As a professor I've worked with dozens of high-performing researchers.

The secret to thriving in modern academia?

Most early-career researchers think:
Academic success = publish papers + teach classes.

Wrong.

What actually creates breakthrough careers: Not academic success
Traditional academia is dying.

The professors thriving today don't just publishβ€”they:

β€’ Get really good at AI to 10x research effectiveness
β€’ Design transformative curricula (not just lectures)
β€’ Lead innovation ecosystems beyond campus

Here's the playbook: πŸ‘‡
PILLAR 1: Research Excellence 2.0

Stop competing on volume. Start competing on impact.

High-performers design a research vision that balances:

βœ“ Interdisciplinary collaboration potential
βœ“ Relevance to emerging tech trends
βœ“ Deep expertise in your niche

Quality > Quantity, always.
Read 12 tweets
Jun 24
Most researchers spend 40+ hours reading papers but can barely remember what they read last week.

After diving deep into how to take notes for my courses,
I found this 4-step system that turns reading into permanent knowledge.

Here's how to never forget what you read again: how to take smart notes
Most of us treat note-taking like passive transcription.

We:

β€’ Can't connect ideas across sources
β€’ Never revisit our notes
β€’ Copy quotes verbatim
β€’ Highlight everything

Result? Our notes become information graveyards.
Take smarter notes:

Instead of writing ABOUT what you read
Write WITH what you read.

The goal isn't to store information.
It's to develop ideas.

Think of your notes as a conversation with the author.

Not a photocopier.
Read 13 tweets
Jun 14
The 3-2-1 Writing Clarity Rule that changed how I approach every academic paper:

Most academics think complex ideas need complex sentences.

They're wrong.

Here's how the 3-2-1 rule works:
3 Types of Unnecessary Words to Cut:

Redundant pairs
("completely eliminate," "exact same")

Vague time markers
("nowadays," "at this point in time")

Meaningless intensifiers
("very unique," "quite significant")
2 Voice Choices:

Passive: "The data was analyzed by the research team"
Active: "The research team analyzed the data"

Active = energy and clarity
Passive = subtlety and focus shift

Choose active
(unless actor is unknown, object is the star, or you want to detach yourself)
Read 7 tweets
May 19
I believed these 11 lies about literature reviews until I knew better

Don't let these myths hold you back.

The honest truth about literature reviews:
πŸ—£οΈ "A literature review is just a summary of sources"
Nope.
Read 45 tweets
Apr 14
How I went from 12 citations to 39,286 by changing how I wrote.

Not what I researched.

My biggest struggles as a researcher were:

* Staying motivated
* Getting published
* Being cited

The one thing I learned:
Writing a paper isn’t hard. Writing a readable one is.

Successful research papers are 60% science, 40% packaging.How to package a research paper
Here's my 7-step framework for writing papers
people actually want to read:

1. Abstract = Your 30-second pitch

Answer simply: "What problem did I solve and why should anyone care?"

Your abstract is your elevator pitch.
Most of you are still writing disclaimers.
2. Introduction = The warm oatmeal of your paper

Begin with what readers already know
before introducing your unique angle

Your introduction isn’t the place to show off.
It’s where trust begins.
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(