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]."

Focusing ONLY on the research is a recipe for publication failure.

How I stay prolific as an author
(even when the first draft feels impossible).

7 essential habits of successful academic authors 1. Define your research's impact

How does this research affect my community?
What's my pitch for this?
Is my study original?

Knowing the contribution is vital.

1. Clarify novelty
2. Craft summary
3. Ensure relevance to scientific discourse

Explain why your research matters.

Ace your lit review with this one insight:

Never summarize previous research without critical analysis

Steal my blueprint for a better literature review: 1. Identify patterns and themes

Find divergences across studies.
And search for commonalities.
Synthesize findings.

Reveal overarching trends and debates.

I want to read clear, concise, compelling papers.

The secret way to produce them is revision.

7 revision tips to go from messy draft to polished paper: 1. Work section by section

Focus on one part of the paper at a time.
Save the introduction and conclusion for last.
Tackle the whole only when the parts are solid.

Focus on completing one section at a time.

I believed these 11 lies about literature reviews until I knew better

Don't let these myths hold you back.

The honest truth about literature reviews 🗣️ "A literature review is just a summary of sources"

Nope.

✅ It's a critical analysis that synthesizes ideas and identifies gaps.

Summarize, synthesize, scrutinize.

How to find the research that matters most to your study
(without getting lost in the literature)

Steal my process for identifying the most relevant studies: 1. Define your research question

Identify key variables.
Clarify your objectives.
Recognize relationships.

Use PICO to craft pinpoint questions.
Articulate what you want to find out.
No strict structure for all questions.

Clarify the main focus of your research.

I cut my systematic review time in half with these tools.

5 underrated tools for literature reviews. 1. Covidence

From importing studies to screening, data extraction, quality assessment.
This web-based platform designed specifically for systematic reviews
Lets you manage every step.

Collaborate with your team in real-time.

Struggling to find a unique angle for your research?

The key to groundbreaking research is in its gaps

7 types of research gaps every scholar should know 1. Contradictory Evidence Gap

When studies yield conflicting conclusions.
It's clear in isolation.
But murky in the bigger picture.

Uncover the truth in the contradictions.

Feeling lost in your new research field?

You don't have to know everything to excel in your PhD.

Here's how: 1. Start with a Broad Brush

Don't try to read everything at once.

Begin with:

• Overview articles
• Literature reviews
• Core textbooks in your field

Get a sense of the big picture before diving into specifics.

Steal my evidence check-up toolkit for systematic reviews!

A systematic review is only as good as its appraisal tools.

11 check-up tools every systematic reviewer should know: 1. Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool

The gold standard for bias assessment in RCTs.

RoB2 builds on the original tool.
More structured.
Use it instead.

Covers:

• Reporting bias
• Performance
• Detection
• Selection
• Attrition

Essential for any review, especially RCTs.

My systematic literature reviews used to lack credibility.

But this all changed when I started doing this...

Critical strategies for transparent lit review reporting: 1. Use Reporting Checklists

Tailor your reporting to the review type.

PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
MOOSE for meta-analyses of observational studies.
CONSORT for randomized controlled trials.

These checklists are your transparency roadmap.

How I silenced the "your n is too small" critics

A manifesto for defending qualitative research

Qualitative researchers face criticism about small sample sizes.

Here's how to address these concerns effectively: 1. Understand the context of the critique

Is the person questioning the value of
• Small samples
• Generalizability
• Data saturation?

Clarify their specific concerns before responding.

The obsession with large sample sizes stifles innovation in research.

I discovered the secret to captivating academic writing:

Academic storytelling.

5 storytelling techniques to master the art: 1. Sustain a compelling narrative

Don't just sprinkle anecdotes.
Weave a cohesive story.

Create
• Suspense
• A narrative arc
• A sense of progression

Keep your readers hooked until the very end.

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.

Struggling with your paper's method section?

They said it's easy. But you're just stuck.

Here's the secret step-by-step guide to help you ace it: 1. Research Question Reminder

• Remind the reader of your research question or problem.

• Help readers understand the context for the methods you choose.

Show why your methods match your question.