Prof Lennart Nacke, PhD Profile picture
Oct 22, 2022 9 tweets 4 min read Read on X
During my academic career, I've spent 10,000+ hours editing LaTeX.

Want to know a secret?

I use these 5 easy-to-follow LaTeX snippets every time I submit a CHI paper, and this thread will save you the time of searching for how to do them.

You'll want to bookmark this. 🧵👇
1. Use the right documentclass options before submitting your paper to CHI

How it works:

- Comment out this line of code with % \documentclass[sigconf,authordraft]{acmart}
- Then add \documentclass[manuscript,screen,review, anonymous]{acmart}

This is the right review format. Screenshot of the replacement of the LaTeX code from the ACM
2. Format nicer-looking research questions

How it works:

Load in LaTeX doc header:
\usepackage{enumerate}
\usepackage[shortlabels]{enumitem}

Type in LaTeX doc body:
\begin{enumerate}[label= \textbf{RQ\arabic*:}]
\item x
\end{enumerate} The image shows the described code in the Overleaf editor an
3. Make sure to always define acronyms before use

How it works:

Load in LaTeX doc header:
\usepackage[nolist]{acronym}

Define acronyms:
\begin{acronym}
\acro{ANOVA}{Analysis of Variance}
\end{acronym}

Write the acronym in your text like this:
"We conducted an \ac{ANOVA}." The image shows the described LaTeX for the acronym package
4. Create pretty quotes for qualitative findings

How it works:

Define a new command called \quoting:
\newcommand{\quoting}[2][P]{``\emph{#2}''\emph{[\textbf{#1}]}}

Use the command like this to quote participants:
\quoting[P13]{This prototype rocked my world.}. The image shows the described LaTeX for the new quoting comm
5. Leave highlighted comments

How it works:

Load in LaTeX doc header:
\usepackage{xcolor}

Define:
\definecolor{highlighterYellow}{HTML}{fff100}
\newcommand{\lennartNote}[1]{\colorbox{highlighterYellow}{\textbf{Lennart:} \textit{#1}}}

Use:
\lennartNote{My nice comment} The image shows the described LaTeX for code to created high
TL;DR: 5 drops of my secret LaTeX sauce to write smooth #chi2023 papers

1. Use the right documentclass options for submission
2. Format nicer-looking RQs
3. Always define acronyms before use
4. Create pretty quotes for qualitative findings
5. Leave highlighted comments
Done like disco.

If you enjoyed this thread:

1. Follow me @acagamic for more tips on writing research papers
2. Buy my How to Write Better Research Papers course: chicourse.com
3. RT the tweet below to share this thread with your writing crew
When you're ready for it, there are two ways I can help you:

1. My newsletters inform you about UX, design, research, and writing. acagamic.com/newsletter

2. My writing course teaches you how to write research papers for CHI and other academic venues: acagamic.com/writingcourse

• • •

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

Aug 22
Most PhD students stare at a blank page for months.

They have smart ideas but no mindmap.

The difference between finishing and forever-editing?

A bulletproof thesis structure.

Here's what successful PhDs know from day one: PhD Thesis Mindmap
1. Introduction sets expectations

Don't bury your thesis statement.
Page 5, not page 50.

2. Literature review proves necessity
Show the gap.

Then point to the problem.

3. Methodology builds trust

Reproducibility is credibility.
Details matter more than smarts.
4. Results stay neutral

Report, don't interpret.
Save opinions for discussion.

5. Discussion connects everything

This is your intellectual playground.
Make connections others missed.
Synthesize everything.

6. Conclusion points forward

End with implications, not summary.
What changes because of your work?
Read 5 tweets
Aug 11
I watched my mentee restart his introduction 10 times.

"I just can't get the flow right," he said.

His manuscript had been stuck for three months.
That's when I showed him my writing framework.

The same framework that helped me publish my papers.
(And it works for writing bits in ChatGPT 5 as well.)

The problem was just the process.
I'll break it down for you here:Academic writing meta framework.
1. Context Mapping First

I always suggest we map before we write.
Context is a powerful frame.

Start with your publication areas and field.
Analyze successful papers in your venue.
Never start with your introduction.
2. Define Your Theoretical Architecture

We can just define boundaries explicitly for a paper:

• Three theoretical lenses maximum
• Single methodology focus
• 10-year literature window

Framework clarity drives everything.
Read 9 tweets
Aug 8
After 15 years in academia, I'll tell you in 30 seconds:

1. Perfect presentations don't pass vivas.
(Confident discussions do.)
2. Your weaknesses are actually opportunities
(to show academic maturity)

Here's the viva slide playbook that works every time:
Your viva isn't about memorizing your thesis. 👀

It's about demonstrating three things:

1. You understand your research deeply
2. You can defend your choices confidently
3. You can think critically under pressure

Most students focus on 1 and ignore 2 and 3.
Your examiners already read your thesis.

They're not testing your memory.

They're testing your ability to:

→ Handle intellectual challenges gracefully
→ Synthesize complex ideas quickly
→ Show academic maturity

This changes everything about preparation.
Read 13 tweets
Jul 22
90% of academic papers I read are now AI-assisted.

Most researchers are in complete denial.

I'm a professor who's been brutally using AI for 18 months.

Here's what I learned that could save your career:
The ancient superpower is gone.

Remember when knowing obscure citations was our academic flex?

When students looked at us in awe as we casually referenced that crucial 1976 paper?

Those days are vanishing faster than free wine at receptions. ⬇︎
The brutal reality has set in...

For decades, our worth was measured by our ability to:

• Find rare sources
• Memorize key passages
• Connect disparate ideas

Today?

My neighbour's teen could use AI to analyze medieval French literature.

How's that, Chrétien de Troyes?
Read 16 tweets
Jul 20
I've been a Prof 13+ years and have 300+ citations.

It took me a decade of reviewing terrible literature sections and deep analysis to learn what I'm about to tell you in 3 minutes:
The Problem:

Most PhD students organize related work completely wrong.

They create random catalogs:

Paper A did this.
Paper B did that.
Paper C found something else.

Sound familiar? 😅
What I learned:

The difference isn't finding more papers
Or writing longer summaries.

It's using established organizational strategies.
Create slick stories instead of boring shopping lists.

Your related work should answer:

WHY does your research exist?
Read 15 tweets
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.

• Contrast an intriguing fact to existing work in your field
• Introduce a thought-provoking problem
• 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.

• Make your work relevant to ongoing debates
• Relate existing research gaps to problems
• Show opposing viewpoints

This builds anticipation for your solution.
Read 10 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!

:(