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

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

4. Use two reviewers

→ Independent assessments
→ Compare decisions
→ Discuss differences
→ Record resolutions

Most PhD students fail at research questions.

(I used to be one of them)

See, back when I started my research journey, I thought coming up with research questions was pure luck.

Just throw something at the wall and hope it sticks.

Wrong.

Here’s the step-by-step breakdown: 1. Define the broad topic area of research

Start broad.

In just one or two sentences, outline the general area you’re interested in.

(Example: “User interaction in virtual reality environments.”)

This sets the stage for deeper investigation.

Stop writing academic papers like a robot.

Tell stories instead.

Most academic writing puts people to sleep.

But it doesn't have to.

Academic storytelling changes everything.

Here's why it works: → Builds emotional connection
→ Creates memorable content
→ Makes complex ideas clear
→ Keeps readers engaged
→ Drives more citations

Yet most academics fail at storytelling.

So I broke it down into 5 simple techniques:

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

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

What if choosing between quantitative and qualitative methods is asking the wrong question entirely?

A comparison of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods

Researchers often agonize over picking quantitative or qualitative methods.

But here's the truth: This "either-or" thinking is outdated.

Let's break down why:

1. Quantitative methods:

• Focus on numbers and statistics
• Provide generalizable results
• Test hypotheses

→ But can miss nuanced insights

My data's strong, but my paper's weak. 😱

Don't just write; guide your reader.

How to use the PASTOR framework: 1. PROBLEM: Identify the gap

• State a clear gap in existing literature.
• Pinpoint the issue your research tackles.

Be explicit about the problem.

❌ 'This area needs more study.'

✅ 'Current methods fail to address X accurately.'

Vagueness won't cut it.
Clearer = better.

How to go from idea to published paper?

I've struggled with writing many times. (And it’s no piece of cake)

So I want to make it easier for you by sharing a simple process that can help anyone improve their writing today.

You can scroll away now... OR you can read below: 1. When you're just starting → Gather your ideas, know your purpose, and think about who you’re writing for.

💡 Organize your thoughts before you start typing.

The dark side of research: Fake citations are on the rise.

Dubious scientists join drug lords and counterfeiters on the black market.

The problem goes deeper than you think. In a nature news article, researchers exposed a disturbing truth:

Citations are being sold in bulk to inflate academic profiles.

For $300, 50 citations will boost a researcher's Google Scholar profile.

Even for a fake scientist.

Yes, fake scientists.

WTF?

3 data types that can power your next data visualization

Most people struggle with how to plot their data.

But if you know your data type, the process becomes easy.

How to visualize your data (by Steve Franconeri): Here’s a quick overview of three common types

1. Discrete categories

These are distinct groups, like cities or product names.
Use bar charts to show differences in their size or count.

The Hero’s Journey is everywhere, but here’s why it works.

Most stories that grip us have something in common:

A powerful structure.

This is the Archplot!

The engine behind Harry Potter, Star Wars, and The Odyssey. (Read on) It’s the journey of a hero who steps out of their comfort zone, faces enemies, hits rock bottom, and rises to victory. The structure transforms ordinary characters into unforgettable legends.

What makes it so effective?

Research grant writing is always evolving. (Yes, professors)

If you’re struggling with grant applications, read on...

What I'm about to share applies to all tenure-track academics. Hopefully, this guide will refine your strategy and enhance your grant success rate. 1. 🎯 Preparation

• Identify funding opportunities
↳ Databases
↳ Deadlines
↳ Eligibility

• Understand funder priorities
↳ Mission
↳ History
↳ Focus

• Develop your research idea
↳ Questions
↳ Review
↳ Gaps

• Assemble your team
↳ Roles
↳ Co-lead
↳ Collaborations

If I were to start my PhD again, I would need to read this post.

Every grad student struggles with time management.

This can seriously derail your academic progress.
And we are not addressing it effectively enough.

Here are 5 ways I would manage my time more effectively: 1. Stop relying on vague writing goals

Create a realistic and specific writing schedule instead.
A good approach: Set daily word count or time targets.

https://x.com/acagamic/status/1800437824468242490

I mastered academic writing 3 years into my PhD.

My hidden ingredient is a compelling claim.

I don't:

• write unfocused arguments.
• present obvious or uncontroversial ideas.
• rehash existing knowledge without insight.
• make sweeping generalizations without evidence. Instead:

• I craft claims that define clear goals and directions for my papers.
• I ensure my claims are argumentative, taking a specific stance.
• I support my claims with robust evidence and expert opinions.
• I make my claims complex enough to sustain an entire paper.

Since finishing my PhD, I've published 200+ high-impact papers.

So here's a quick PhD Publishing Masterclass:

(I know, some Universities charge crazy tuition for this) 1. Nail your literature review → comprehensiveness and critical analysis.
A review that's "exhaustive" creates context.
Therefore, it's easily defensible.

Most researchers list papers, not synthesize knowledge.

How I mastered explaining my reasoning in research papers

3 insider secrets to crafting compelling conclusions 1. Distill deductive paragraphs

Begin with a topic sentence.
Summarize a key data trend.
Support it with specific data.

Link the trend to readers' goals.
Prioritize key conclusions in topic sentences.
Guide readers through your thought process.

Construct your deduction.

Struggling to make sense of research papers?

I got to the secrets of research papers by reading them with this approach

9 essential steps every researcher must know: 1. Set a reading purpose

Clarify why you're reading the paper.
Is it assigned to you for a review?
Or relevant to your research?

Your purpose guides your approach.

Drowning in papers?

Use this 7-step method to find your PhD research gap!

The PhD literature mapping blueprint 1. Define your research area

Pinpoint specific topics of interest.
Identify your broad field of study.
Clarity is crucial.

Be cautious when selecting your field of study.

How I craft compelling research stories that editors love

The ultimate guide to creating a persuasive research narrative: 1. Identify a critical problem

Be targeted.
Be focused.
Be specific.

Show a significant challenge in your field.

I've been advised to avoid the phrase:

"No previous studies have investigated..."

It's a cheap hook to claim the value of your study.

Here are 5 approaches I use in my writing instead: 1. Emphasize the research novelty

Don't focus on the absence of previous research.
Claim the originality of your proposed research.

Example:
"This study proposes a unique approach to [topic] building on [X] theories. We introduce a new methodology to address [specific gaps]."