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.
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}
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}."
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.}.
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
Most researchers make a critical mistake in their methods section that instantly signals 'amateur' to reviewers. It's so common that I see it in 7 out of 10 papers, yet so simple to fix...
Delay writing your Methods section.
Spend time owning your research process first:
By answering 4 questions:
• What problem did you solve?
• For whom did you solve it?
• Why did this problem need solving?
• How did you solve it effectively?
Get comfortable thinking through each:
Think through your research design
Think through your ethical choices
Think through your data collection
Think through your analysis steps
Think through your limitations
Write down specific answers for each.
And if you have unclear answers:
→ Take time to better understand
Then, write Methods section in 8 steps:
(with the information needed in it)
1. Start with your "why"
Remind readers briefly what problem you solved
Link your methods directly to your research question
(No one cares about methods without context)
2. Pick your approach
Choose qualitative, quantitative, or mixed
Match it to your research goals
Clarify why THIS approach
3. Decode unusual methods
Got a unique approach? Explain it
Defend why you picked it
Show how it beats traditional options
Every groundbreaking discovery in science started with someone willing to challenge their own assumptions. Your next literature review could be the one that changes everything.
Your academic work needs to fight confirmation bias.
It's blocking you from great research.
And it's easier to fix than you think.
Here's how to destroy confirmation bias in your research:
1. Plan before you search
→ Write your research questions
→ Define inclusion criteria
→ List your search terms
→ Pick your databases
2. Document everything
→ All search strings used
→ Every database checked
→ Number of results found
→ Selection decisions made
3. Remove author identity
→ Code your studies
→ Hide author names
→ Mask institutions
→ Review methods first
How I turned a 50-page literature review into a concise 10-page masterpiece using 9 simple questions:
Most researchers get lost in endless summaries.
They miss the big picture.
But there's a simple framework to fix this.
I call it the 9-Question Literature Review Framework:
1. What has been done? 2. What were the hypotheses? 3. What were the research questions? 4. How was the work done? 5. When was it done? 6. Who did it? 7. What were the main findings? 8. What were the conclusions? 9. What should be done next?
This framework helps you:
• Organize your thoughts
• Identify research gaps
• Develop your own questions
Here's how to use it:
1. Ask these questions for each relevant study 2. Organize answers into themes 3. Identify patterns and contradictions 4. Spot gaps in current research
The result?
A focused, insightful literature review that adds value to your field.
Feel like giving up on research proposals? (Read this, please)
Back in my early career, I lost two grant applications.
In my PhD, I nearly quit academic writing altogether.
I almost gave up on research. Twice.
But as Associate Professor, something shifted. 3 things, actually:
1. Proposal structure → without compromise
I committed to using a foolproof outline for every proposal:
Title Page → Your research's first impression
Table of Contents → A roadmap for reviewers
Abstract → Your research in a nutshell
Introduction → Set the stage and state your case
Methodology → Your research blueprint
Operational Planning → Show you can execute
Appendices → Support your proposal
I viewed it as honing my research skills. Consistently.
(the next one flipped the script)