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

Jan 1
Your paper doesn't prove you can think.

It proves you can execute.

The real question reviewers should ask:

Did you place a new brick on the wall of knowledge?

Or did you just describe the bricks already there?

Scientific merit isn't volume.

It's contribution.

Here's how to know the difference:
Repetition disguises itself as rigour.
β€’ You run the same study in a different population.
β€’ You replicate findings everyone already accepts.
β€’ You add one more variable to an exhausted model.

It feels productive.

But you're repainting the same wall.
Contribution looks different:
β€’ It answers a question nobody else asked
β€’ It challenges assumptions your field takes for granted
β€’ It opens doors instead of confirming what's behind them

The test is brutal but simple.
Read 8 tweets
Dec 31, 2025
Most researchers treat skill development like cardio: more time equals better results.

Wrong.

You don't get better at critical thinking by just reading more papers.

You get better by practicing specific exercises with clear progress indicators.

Seven skills, seven protocols:
1. Critical Thinking Practice
Take any paper you cited uncritically.

List five questions about their methodology you should have asked.

Identify one assumption they made that could invalidate their conclusion.

Weekly time: 30 minutes.
Progress indicator: You spot flaws before reading discussion sections.
2. Information Literacy Practice

Build a search protocol for an unfamiliar topic.

Document every decision:

which databases, what terms, which filters, why.

Give it to a colleague and see if they get the same results.

Weekly time: 45 minutes.
Progress indicator: Your protocols become templates others request.
Read 9 tweets
Dec 23, 2025
I thought 200 PDFs meant progress with my lit review.

But my reviewers called it a filing cabinet.

If you’re supervising MSc/PhD students
(or writing your first review),
this will save you weeks.

I've supervised dozens of graduate students.
But most of them dive into papers without a protocol.

They collect PDFs. They summarize each one.
And the review ships as a pile of summaries.
Reviewers shred it in two sentences.

Here's how to fix this before it wastes another 3 months:Colorful infographic titled "Ultimate Literature Review Cheat Sheet" outlining why/where/who/what/how steps, dos/don’ts, checklist and tips for conducting a literature review.
1. Write the protocol before reading
Why: No protocol = random reading, weak scholarship.

DO THIS:
β€’ Define one research question (1 sentence)
β€’ Choose your goal: methods/find gaps/clarify concepts

β€’ Write a 5-line plan:
β†’ scope
β†’ concepts
β†’ outcomes
β†’ timeframe
β†’ method
2. Document your search like a Wikipedia entry
Why: If it can't be replicated, it won't be trusted.

DO THIS:
β€’ List databases: Scopus/WoS/PubMed/Google Scholar
β€’ Record: keywords + Boolean + filters
β€’ Log dates + totals: "23 Dec 2025 β†’ 612 hits"
β€’ Keep a simple search log table (even in a Notes doc)
Read 9 tweets
Nov 26, 2025
Most research questions fail before the study even begins.

The problem isn't finding gaps.
It's proving why gaps matter.

After publishing 300+ papers and supervising dozens of PhDs,
I've seen the same mistakes over and over.

Most researchers get this wrong:
The So What? Test:

Your RQ must answer one question:
Why should anyone care?

If you can't explain the real-world benefit in one sentence,
your question isn't ready.

Significance isn't optional.

It's the foundation.
Gap vs. Contribution

Finding a research gap isn't enough.
Anyone can spot missing research.

The real skill?
Showing why filling that gap actually matters to your field.

Gap = what's missing
Contribution = why it matters
Read 10 tweets
Nov 25, 2025
Most researchers waste months on a systematic review

(when a rapid review would have been good enough.)

Two review types. Same question.
Completely different amount of work.

According to this paper, 14 literature review types exist.

If you get started, focus on 2 main types: Table listing 14 literature review types with descriptions and columns for methods: search, appraisal, synthesis, and analysis.
Run a systematic review when you’re shaping guidelines.
Use a rapid review when leadership wants an answer this quarter.

Systematic reviews:

β€’ Multi-database + grey literature search, no date limits
β€’ Typically used for guidelines or high-stakes decisions
β€’ Dual screening + full critical appraisal, validated tools
β€’ In-depth narrative synthesis to explain heterogeneity
β€’ Detailed evidence tables, if possible, meta-analysis
β€’ Formal, pre-registered protocol (e.g. PROSPERO)
Rapid reviews:

β€’ Typically used for time-sensitive service (1–6 months)
β€’ Output a short decision brief, slide deck, or summary
β€’ High-level narrative summary with minimal detail
β€’ Focused search (fewer databases, tighter limits)
β€’ Single-reviewer screening with spot checks
β€’ Streamlined or internal-only protocol
Read 8 tweets
Nov 19, 2025
Google just killed keyword search

But most researchers haven’t noticed yet.

That's a mistake.
The era of guessing keywords is over.

Google released Gemini 3 yesterday and it's amazing.

But Scholar Labs changes how gaps are discovered. Website mockup showing a Google Scholar Labs interface with Gemini 3 logo, a semantic search query about hydrogen cars, AI summaries and session search history.
Conceptual search is taking its place.

Here are 5 ways Scholar Labs beats traditional literature searches:

1. You search concepts, not keywords

Traditional search = β€œcaffeine and memory.”
Conceptual search =
β€’ caffeine consumption
β€’ short-term memory mechanisms
β€’ age variations

One search. Three dimensions. Better results.
2. Context comes built-in

Every paper comes with an explanation of how it answers your question.

No more reading 30 abstracts to find 3 relevant papers.
Quick summaries get you sorted.
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!

:(