Prof Lennart Nacke, PhD Profile picture
Sep 3, 2022 8 tweets 29 min read 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:
🧵↓
Introduction:

→ What is known?
→ What is unknown?
→ How and why should we fill the gap?
→ 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:

→ 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:

→ What did you do?

→ 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:

→ Meaning and implications of this research.
→ How do the results fill the gap?
→ Where do your results not apply?
→ 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

→ 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.

• • •

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

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

Dec 30, 2024
Here's the perfect formula to write a literature review paragraph.

A great literature review paragraph needs exactly 2 components.

Most students think every paper needs its own paragraph.

Completely off the mark.

The secret? Lit Review Paragraph example.
Combine synthesis + evaluation:

• Find papers with similar findings
• Group them under one theme
• Connect everything together
• Add critique for each study
Example:

Bad:
"Smith (2020) studied caffeine. Jones (2021) also studied caffeine."

Good:
"Studies show caffeine boosts performance in endurance athletes (Smith, 2020; Jones, 2021), though dosage timing remains debated. While Smith found pre-workout intake optimal, Jones demonstrated mid-workout consumption produced stronger results in elite runners."

See the difference?

One uses contrasting to tell a story.
One just glances over the studies.
Read 5 tweets
Dec 26, 2024
Most people approach critical thinking wrong.

They focus on individual skills:
• Problem-solving ability
• Decision making
• Logical reasoning

But critical thinking has 3 deeper layers: Overview of critical and analytical thinking from https://www.learningscientists.org/blog/2017/8/30-1
1. Question Everything

Ask "why" before accepting claims
Challenge your own assumptions
Seek evidence beyond opinions

2. Build Connections

Link knowledge to experience
Find patterns in complex data
Connect seemingly unrelated ideas

3. Stay Open-Minded

Listen to opposing views
Update beliefs with new evidence
Focus on learning, not being right

The difference between good and great thinkers?
Great thinkers combine all 3 layers.

They don't just solve.
They reframe problems.
They find better questions.
They create new possibilities.

Chasing more evidence?

Look at any groundbreaking innovation:

Someone questioned the status quo.
Built unexpected connections.
Stayed open to new ideas.

That's real critical thinking.

Not just a skill.
A mindset.

Which of these 3 layers do you struggle with most?
Read 5 tweets
Dec 23, 2024
A systematic review requires exhaustive, comprehensive searching with quality assessment criteria, while a rapid review can be completed with time-limited formal quality assessment. The difference is months of work.

According to this paper, 14 literature review types exist.

If you get started, focus on 2 main types:

Systematic reviews → exhaustive analysis
Rapid reviews → quick assessmentTable 1 from Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Systematic reviews:

• Quality assessment required
• Comprehensive searching
• 6-24 months timeline
• Tabular presentation
• Narrative synthesis
• Formal protocols

Rapid reviews:

• Limited quality checks
• Time-bound searching
• Evidence summary
• Basic presentation
• 1-6 month timeline
• Flexible protocols

The distinction?

Speed vs. thoroughness.
Pick systematic when:

→ You need thorough certainty
→ Time isn't the main factor
→ Quality is everything

Pick rapid when:

→ You need quick insights
→ Time drives decisions
→ Good enough works

Don't overcomplicate this.
Your timeline decides.

Source: Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Which review type fits your project?
Join 6,913+ researchers if you like snack-sized research tips like this:
go.lennartnacke.com/newsletter

Have a great day and repost this.
Read 4 tweets
Dec 22, 2024
The human mind, heart, and body are more complex than we think.

(This will change how you see decision-making forever)

Most people view the mind as a simple input-output machine. But it's actually a sophisticated system of interconnected layers: Layers of body, mind, heart.
Core

• Raw existence (energy, matter, time)
• Basic survival instincts
• Pure consciousness

Personal

• Your unique experiences
• Individual behaviours
• Personal values

Environment

• Cultural institutions
• Power structures
• Economic forces

Each layer influences every decision you make.

But you have to understand which layer drives specific choices.

Want to change behaviour for good?
Target the correct layer.
Examples:

Social anxiety → Environment
Fear response → Core
Bad habit → Personal

Stop fighting yourself at the level that doesn't match up.

P.S. Which layer do you think influences your decisions most? Share your thoughts below.
Read 4 tweets
Dec 17, 2024
Chat PDF in Paperpal just changed how I read research papers.

Just uploaded a systematic review paper and my jaw dropped.

Here's what happened: Instant paper insights with paperpal through chatting with a PDF.
1. Instant paper breakdown

• Title, authors, DOI extracted automatically
• Smart summary generated in seconds
• Key sections identified and linked
• Research questions pulled out precisely

2. Smart paper connections

• Found relevant papers I hadn't discovered
• Connected papers across different fields
• Added them to my library with one click
• Surfaced hidden relationships

But the real magic? The built-in question engine.
Instead of scrolling endlessly, I clicked "Provide a summary of the discussion section" and got 6 key points with direct links to my source text.

Want to try something powerful?

Upload your PDF and ask:
• "What are the main findings?"
• "Describe the methodology"
• "List the research questions"

It finds answers instantly, with links to the exact paper sections to double-check.
Read 5 tweets
Dec 15, 2024
Most researchers make a fatal mistake in their proposal's introduction, but understanding the "Why-What" sequence can change everything...

Here's a 15-part structure I use that makes it simple.

Let's break it down into 7 broad steps: How to write a research proposal infographic from Lennart Nacke.
1. Start with why it matters in context

• State your research purpose
• Hook readers with significance

2. Back up claims in literature

• Map the existing knowledge
• Find the gaps to fill
3. Define your focus

• Research problem
• Research questions
• Clear objectives

4. Plan your approach

• Pick your theory
• Choose methods
• Set data collection strategy
Read 5 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!

:(