Prof Lennart Nacke, PhD Profile picture
Jan 22, 2023 10 tweets 5 min read Read on X
Most academic writing is awful at concision.

It's always:

• Verbose verbiage
• Prolix prose
• Jumbled jargon

Horrible to read.

Here's how top academic writers tweak their text. ↓
#AcademicTwitter #AcademicChatter #phdlife #phdvoice #phdstudent Hero image with text in front of yellow background (with pat
1. 'Irregardless' is a word, but don't use it.

The dictionary shows it's a word but also labels it as non-standard and incorrect in standard English.

Use either 'irrespective' or 'regardless.' This shows the dictionary definition of irregardless. Irrega
2. There is more than one way to write the possessive form of a word that ends in S.

Most academics are used to AP style, where the possessive of a word ending in S gets an apostrophe.

→ James' paper

But Chicago style recommends against that for clarity.

→ James's paper Two different styles of possessives ending in S from The Chi
3. The abbreviations 'i.e.' and 'e.g.' do not mean the same thing.

“e.g.” means "for example," and “i.e.” means "in other words" or "meaning."

“e.g.” → incomplete list of examples (no need to add 'etc.' at the end!)

“i.e.” → clarifying statement Example sentence: The interactive entertainment (i.e., games
4. Avoid run-on sentences.

Fusing together two complete sentences is not pretty.

It doesn't only happen in long sentences but can be as short as "I'm short he's a baller."

This happens when you don't use a semicolon, colon, or dash between two independent sentences. Run-on sentence example: I wish I was a little bit taller I
5. Passive voice is terrible, but it is not always incorrect.

Generally, avoid passive voice.

But:

Passive voice can be the best choice if you don't know who is responsible for an action.

"Mistakes were made." Example showing: "Mistakes were made" in front of
6. It's okay to split your infinitives.

Henry Alford, Dean of Canterbury, promoted the idea that you shouldn’t put an adverb in the middle of an infinitive
in his 1864 book:

The Queen’s English.

Not a rule, an idea.

For example: "To better understand" is common in academia. Star Trek reference image: An image of the starship Enterpri
7. You can end a sentence with a preposition.

Remove the preposition if the statement makes sense without it.

If the preposition is part of a phrasal verb or is necessary for a better style, keep it.

Example: "Let's kiss and make up." An example of a sentence ending with a preposition in front
TL;DR: Academic Writing

1. 'Irregardless' is a no-use word
2. S-ending possessives are stylistic.
3. 'i.e.' and 'e.g.' are not the same
4. Avoid run-on sentences
5. Passive voice is bad but not wrong
6. It's OK to split your infinitives
7. Prepositions can finish sentences.
If you found these tips helpful:

Close Twitter and start working on your next article. 🫶

But before you leave, please RT the tweet below and pay it forward.

Best of luck to you!

• • •

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 11
Reviewers don't read your paper like a detective novel.

They skim for structure.

If they can't see your logic in 90 seconds, they'll assume it doesn't exist.

Signposting lets your paper survive.
The worst rejections happen because reviewers got lost.

Not because your methods were weak.
Not because your data was insufficient.

Because they couldn't follow your argument.

Tired reviewers reject confusion.
Signposting fixes this.

Three essential elements:

1. Subheadings that preview conclusions
2. Transition sentences that connect sections
3. Opening paragraphs that state what's coming

Every section needs all three.
Read 10 tweets
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

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!

:(