The dictionary shows it's a word but also labels it as non-standard and incorrect in standard English.
Use either 'irrespective' or 'regardless.'
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
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
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.
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."
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.
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."
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.
I once watched a researcher present at a conference.
Perfectly polished slides. Flawless delivery. Zero connection.
Then someone else got up-stumbled through their intro, admitted they weren't sure about one of their findings, showed messy preliminary data.
That's the one everyone wanted to talk to afterward.
Here's what I've learned helping academics turn research into content:
The polished version gets you respect.
The real version gets you readers.
I see this everywhere now.
Researchers afraid to share:
- Failed experiments
- Questions they don't have answers to
- The messy middle of their thinking
They think it undermines their credibility.
It does the opposite.
When you share the uncertainty, the struggle, the "I don't know yet" in public, that's when people lean in. Because that's what real research looks like. That's what real thinking looks like.
Your audience isn't looking for another perfectly packaged insight. They're suffocating in those.
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