Prof Lennart Nacke, PhD Profile picture
Dec 31, 2022 25 tweets 3 min read Read on X
I learned 22 academic writing lessons the hard way.

Here they are to celebrate the end of 2022: ↓
But why listen to me?

- Built an online writing course for #chi2023 authors in 2022

- Have taught this writing course for 6+ years at conferences and other venues

- Over 27,000 citations to my research

- Publish 3+ papers every year at high-impact HCI venues
Alright, here we go.

Lesson 1

🔴 Academic writing isn't just about publishing.

🟢 Academic writing is a way to share your knowledge with the world.
Lesson 2

🔴 Only the accuracy and facts of your writing matter.

🟢 The clarity and precision of your writing reflect the depth of your thinking.
Lesson 3

🔴 Never challenge existing facts and conventional wisdom.

🟢 Don't be afraid to challenge conventional wisdom in your writing.
Lesson 4

🔴 Every insight comes from existing literature.

🟢 Every research question is an opportunity for new insights.
Lesson 5

🔴 You have to get your writing right the first time you submit.

🟢 Effective academic writing involves ongoing revision and improvement.
Lesson 6

🔴 The best academic writing is driven by format and impassionate writing style.

🟢 The best academic writing is driven by curiosity and a desire to make a difference.
Lesson 7

🔴 You write for your peers to build on your research.

🟢 Your writing should be accessible to a broad audience.
Lesson 8

🔴 You should use exotic terminology to make yourself sound brilliant.

🟢 Your writing should be clear and concise, not verbose or jargon-filled.
Lesson 9

🔴 Effective academic writing needs time crunch and a deadline.

🟢 Effective academic writing requires discipline and focus.
Lesson 10

🔴 Your writing should shake up existing content structures.

🟢 Your writing should be well-organized and logical, following the IMRD (introduction, methods, results, discussion) structure.
Lesson 11

🔴 You can frame your evidence even with non-credible sources.

🟢 Your writing should be supported by evidence and credible sources.
Lesson 12

🔴 You can water down all of your ideas to the basics.

🟢 The structure of your writing should reflect the complexity of your ideas.
Lesson 13

🔴 You don't need to proofread your manuscript, just get it done and submitted.

🟢 Effective academic writing requires careful proofreading & editing.
Lesson 14

🔴 Your results can just confirm existing research.

🟢 Maybe, but your writing should contribute something new to the conversation.
Lesson 15

🔴 Language does not matter as much as content.

🟢 The language you use in your writing should be appropriate, active, and professional.
Lesson 16

🔴 Great results require hyperbolic writing to state the importance.

🟢 The tone of your writing should be respectful and unbiased.
Lesson 17

🔴 You can always catch your mistakes in the camera-ready version.

🟢 Your writing should be free of errors and mistakes as much as possible for the first submission.
Lesson 18

🔴 You can write using the same style for different disciplines and fields.

🟢 Your writing style should be appropriate for your audience and purpose.
Lesson 19

🔴 Effective academic writing is not creative.

🟢 Effective academic writing requires a balance between formality and creativity.
Lesson 20

🔴 Your writing should just be formal.

🟢 Your writing should be engaging and inspiring.
Lesson 21

🔴 Writing is done alone.

🟢 Writing is a collaborative effort that involves feedback and input from others.
Lesson 22

🔴 Your writing should not have personality.

🟢 Your writing should reflect your passion and dedication to your field.
That's a wrap. Thanks for your time.

If you liked this, give it a RT and follow me @acagamic to learn more about games, UX research, and writing.

• • •

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

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.
• You run the same study in a different population.
• You replicate findings everyone already accepts.
• You add one more variable to an exhausted model.

It feels productive.

But you're repainting the same wall.
Contribution looks different:
• It answers a question nobody else asked
• It challenges assumptions your field takes for granted
• 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:
• Define one research question (1 sentence)
• Choose your goal: methods/find gaps/clarify concepts

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

DO THIS:
• List databases: Scopus/WoS/PubMed/Google Scholar
• Record: keywords + Boolean + filters
• Log dates + totals: "23 Dec 2025 → 612 hits"
• 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:

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

• Typically used for time-sensitive service (1–6 months)
• Output a short decision brief, slide deck, or summary
• High-level narrative summary with minimal detail
• Focused search (fewer databases, tighter limits)
• Single-reviewer screening with spot checks
• 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 = “caffeine and memory.”
Conceptual search =
• caffeine consumption
• short-term memory mechanisms
• 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!

:(