Andrew AkbashevAuthor
Scientist (PI) | Creator & Speaker for Academia | ex-Stanford The link to this excellent Letter:
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsphyschemau.2c00011
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsphyschemau.2c00011
隴山隴西郡
寧靜純我心 感得事物人 寫樸實清新. 閑書閑話養閑心,閑筆閑寫記閑人;人生無虞懂珍惜，以沫相濡字字真。
正文
To all PhD students who write research papers:
Below are 7 quotes from the Editors of ACS Physical Chemistry Au, plus my comments:
1. "Write the kind of papers you LOVE to read. All readers will be grateful for every effort you make to explain your ideas in a clear and informative fashion."
- Reading should be enjoyable. Ask your colleagues - did they enjoy your article? What is missing? Where do they lose attention?
2. "... keep the writing concise! You want to provide the clearest presentation of your science in the simplest style."
- Long article ≠ Good article. Conciseness is your biggest friend. Polishing the text means removing unnecessary details and sentences. Move all secondary information to the Supplementary Material if possible.
3. "You might be in the fortunate situation of having a mentor who is training you in this process or even formal courses as part of your studies. But even if you do not, there is nothing to worry about ─ there are MANY resources available to help you get started."
- Yes, mentors are great to have. BUT many great scientists learned to write papers on their own. You can also do it. Just focus. Find 10 excellent papers online and see WHAT makes them excellent.
4. "You might read for 3 h to write one sentence. You might plot your data three different ways before you understand the clearest, most EFFECTIVE way to show your results. You might take a whole day to make a single figure or 20 min to write a figure caption."
- Great masterpieces take time.
5. "... write the paper your results support, not the paper you hoped to write at the start of the project."
- This is central to scientific writing. You must ensure the logic is clear. Don’t seek the outcome you hope to find. Your interpretations should be similar to the conclusions that your peers in the field would also draw based on your results.
6. "You need to manage your coauthors’ expectations and make sure you work in a way that minimizes the chances that you end up with a big job rewriting the paper because your coauthors are not satisfied."
- First, discuss results and the story. When all agree, THEN proceed to writing. Start with “Results”, then proceed to “Discussion & Conclusion”. Do not write “Introduction” until your central story & conclusions are clear.
7. "Write a paper you are proud of. This paper is the lasting mark of your research in the world."
- Perfect your work until you feel happy & proud. Great masterpieces stand the test of time.
My ultimate message:
Don't publish a lot of papers that no one will care about.
Don’t publish papers that are hard to read & understand.
Don’t publish for the sake of publishing.
Instead, publish a few that are thorough and deep.
Be proud of your masterpieces!
Make sure they stand the test of time.
[The link to the article is in the comment below]
Below are 7 quotes from the Editors of ACS Physical Chemistry Au, plus my comments:
1. "Write the kind of papers you LOVE to read. All readers will be grateful for every effort you make to explain your ideas in a clear and informative fashion."
- Reading should be enjoyable. Ask your colleagues - did they enjoy your article? What is missing? Where do they lose attention?
2. "... keep the writing concise! You want to provide the clearest presentation of your science in the simplest style."
- Long article ≠ Good article. Conciseness is your biggest friend. Polishing the text means removing unnecessary details and sentences. Move all secondary information to the Supplementary Material if possible.
3. "You might be in the fortunate situation of having a mentor who is training you in this process or even formal courses as part of your studies. But even if you do not, there is nothing to worry about ─ there are MANY resources available to help you get started."
- Yes, mentors are great to have. BUT many great scientists learned to write papers on their own. You can also do it. Just focus. Find 10 excellent papers online and see WHAT makes them excellent.
4. "You might read for 3 h to write one sentence. You might plot your data three different ways before you understand the clearest, most EFFECTIVE way to show your results. You might take a whole day to make a single figure or 20 min to write a figure caption."
- Great masterpieces take time.
5. "... write the paper your results support, not the paper you hoped to write at the start of the project."
- This is central to scientific writing. You must ensure the logic is clear. Don’t seek the outcome you hope to find. Your interpretations should be similar to the conclusions that your peers in the field would also draw based on your results.
6. "You need to manage your coauthors’ expectations and make sure you work in a way that minimizes the chances that you end up with a big job rewriting the paper because your coauthors are not satisfied."
- First, discuss results and the story. When all agree, THEN proceed to writing. Start with “Results”, then proceed to “Discussion & Conclusion”. Do not write “Introduction” until your central story & conclusions are clear.
7. "Write a paper you are proud of. This paper is the lasting mark of your research in the world."
- Perfect your work until you feel happy & proud. Great masterpieces stand the test of time.
My ultimate message:
Don't publish a lot of papers that no one will care about.
Don’t publish papers that are hard to read & understand.
Don’t publish for the sake of publishing.
Instead, publish a few that are thorough and deep.
Be proud of your masterpieces!
Make sure they stand the test of time.
[The link to the article is in the comment below]
Samira Hosseini • 2nd
I help you publish your paper in top-tier journals; even those ????-time rejected ones | Research Professor & Director @ TEC | Co-founder & CEO @ Horizone#3 is complete hypocrisy. Lack of formal training and mentoring in publication is the reason why many are left behind, don’t secure the right opportunities, or think of quitting academia altogether.
It’s true that one can pick up free pieces and bits here and there to figure it out. But it entails going round and round in circles of pain and frustration. Meanwhile, there’s so much to lose:
• A decent salary one could’ve received month after month
• Self-confidence and feeling of accomplishments
• Opportunities for growth and stepping up
It’s lives that are impacted—not just one.
Suggestion It would’ve been nice if all these lucrative publication businesses chipped in a small sum of the benefits they collect to create a formal and complete training on publication—ending frustration and, by default, receiving high-quality submissions.
It’s true that one can pick up free pieces and bits here and there to figure it out. But it entails going round and round in circles of pain and frustration. Meanwhile, there’s so much to lose:
• A decent salary one could’ve received month after month
• Self-confidence and feeling of accomplishments
• Opportunities for growth and stepping up
It’s lives that are impacted—not just one.
Suggestion It would’ve been nice if all these lucrative publication businesses chipped in a small sum of the benefits they collect to create a formal and complete training on publication—ending frustration and, by default, receiving high-quality submissions.
4 Replies on Samira Hosseini’s comment
Andrew AkbashevAuthor
Scientist (PI) | Creator & Speaker for Academia | ex-StanfordSamira Hosseini I agree we don't give formal training.
But this is how the system's been working forever.
And students need to master their writing today. Most of the world is hypocritical, it doesn't mean we shouldn't help those who need it :)
But this is how the system's been working forever.
And students need to master their writing today. Most of the world is hypocritical, it doesn't mean we shouldn't help those who need it :)
Rahisa Scussel • 2nd
Postdoctoral Researcher PhD in Health SciencesAndrew Akbashev As a academic students we must to improve our skills even without properly training. We should be able to read situations and seek autonomy. I mean, you’re as good writer as you are good reader.. Being research means to be curious and interested not just wait for guidance. Of course, when we have it we must realy learn from it.
Andrew Churchill, PhD • 2nd
Amplifying the voice of researchers | Founder of PresentBetter | 10+ years & 10,000+ researchers trained | Currently booking with universities for '25-'26 academic yearIf it's easy to read that means someone spent a hell of a lot of hard work writing it. Behind every well written paper / essay / novel are a lot of drafts and hard work.
3 Replies on Andrew Churchill, PhD’s comment
Andrew AkbashevAuthor
Scientist (PI) | Creator & Speaker for Academia | ex-StanfordDozens of drafts sometimes! And a year of writing and condensing…
Andrew Churchill, PhD • 2nd
Amplifying the voice of researchers | Founder of PresentBetter | 10+ years & 10,000+ researchers trained | Currently booking with universities for '25-'26 academic yearIndeed!
Kyangzi C. • 3rd+
PhD Student Chemistry(edited)
Hi Andrew. Do you recommend using active or passive voice when writing a scientific paper, or does it depend on the context?Thanks.
3 Replies on Kyangzi C.’s comment
Andrew AkbashevAuthor
Scientist (PI) | Creator & Speaker for Academia | ex-StanfordDepends on the context and topic. In chemistry, materials science and physics (where I work), we usually try to use an active voice because it is easier to read. But perhaps somewhere in high-energy and elementary particle physics where 100s of co-authors are in the paper, it is better to use a passive approach.
Michael Leap • 3rd+
Experienced Materials Engineer and Project ManagerMy vote: Active voice as much as possible.
Lennart Nacke • 2nd
Professor for smart researchers & writersI advise students to take some time to get to the nuggets, Andrew.
If reviewers immediately agree, you have to dig deeper.
Research papers need deep roots, not wide branches.
Easy peer review is like bad medicine.
New ideas should feel a bit uncomfortable to the field.
Discomfort breeds discovery.
If reviewers immediately agree, you have to dig deeper.
Research papers need deep roots, not wide branches.
Easy peer review is like bad medicine.
New ideas should feel a bit uncomfortable to the field.
Discomfort breeds discovery.
1 Comment on Lennart Nacke’s comment
Andrew AkbashevAuthor
Scientist (PI) | Creator & Speaker for Academia | ex-Stanford"Research papers need deep roots"
- this is exactly why I say "First, discuss results and the story. When all agree, THEN proceed to writing."
Don't jump into paper writing. Make sure you have the depth well thought through and discussed first.
- this is exactly why I say "First, discuss results and the story. When all agree, THEN proceed to writing."
Don't jump into paper writing. Make sure you have the depth well thought through and discussed first.
Latifa Ouatahar • 2nd
Cows |Methane |Modelling |Climate Tech"Don’t publish for the sake of publishing, Instead, publish a few that are thorough and deep.".. thanks for all the insightful tips, Andrew. however sometimes PhDs don't have the last word. how to balance that with PIs and Univerisities expectations?
1 Comment on Latifa Ouatahar’s comment
Andrew AkbashevAuthor
Scientist (PI) | Creator & Speaker for Academia | ex-StanfordLatifa Ouatahar this is hard. When you're already in the group where the priorities are different from yours, there is not much you can do. One thing that may(!) help is to talk to your advisor and explain your preferences but without pushing them too much. You can ask to spend a bit more time on your paper to ensure its quality goes higher, for example.
If the requirements are fixed by the university (or PI), then do your best to ensure your work shines within those requirements. There is no fixed rule for publishing. If you have little freedom, you can still do your best. We all are somewhat forced to shift away from the 'perfeсt world'.
If the requirements are fixed by the university (or PI), then do your best to ensure your work shines within those requirements. There is no fixed rule for publishing. If you have little freedom, you can still do your best. We all are somewhat forced to shift away from the 'perfeсt world'.
Anton Gavrilov • 3rd+
10+ Years in Low-Carbon Innovation & Critical Materials | Driving Automotive Decarbonization | Increasing Focus on Digitalization in Industry Projects| Academia-Industry Tech2TechOne should always ask oneself before publishing: would you yourself be interested in reading this publication if you were just starting out in this field?
1 Comment on Anton Gavrilov’s comment
Andrew AkbashevAuthor
Scientist (PI) | Creator & Speaker for Academia | ex-StanfordAnton Gavrilov definitely!
LingJun Zhou • 3rd+
End-to-end Python Engineer and AI Scientist | I help businesses validate data-driven ideas with end-to-end MVPs within 3-5 months | Experienced in Time Series, NLP, DevOps.Andrew Akbashev, just side note, some of my classmates totally let their supervisor write/edit most of their thesis, not sure about your thoughts on that. Their English is bad..to start with.
1 Comment on LingJun Zhou’s comment
Andrew AkbashevAuthor
Scientist (PI) | Creator & Speaker for Academia | ex-StanfordI think it's up to them, their PI and university. This doesn't change much globally. But if they wanted to use their theses as an opportunity to learn how to write and present their thoughts effectively, they might have probably missed it.
Tomas Zvolensky • 2nd
Researcher | EE publishing platform | Marketing magicianno 2. is a big one - often lacking even with senior researchers.
1 Comment on Tomas Zvolensky’s comment
Andrew AkbashevAuthor
Scientist (PI) | Creator & Speaker for Academia | ex-Stanfordyes!
I train my students in concise writing early on. It’s easier to train than retrain.
I train my students in concise writing early on. It’s easier to train than retrain.
Gleb Strunkin • 3rd+
Power electronics engineer, Master of ScienceI've always had a problem with reviewers demanding that I expand my article because it was written so succinctly ))
1 Comment on Gleb Strunkin’s comment
Andrew AkbashevAuthor
Scientist (PI) | Creator & Speaker for Academia | ex-StanfordGleb Strunkin same for me, especially lately.
They seem to be used to big manuscripts because 'what looks bigger looks better'.
They seem to be used to big manuscripts because 'what looks bigger looks better'.
Omer Mujahid • 3rd+
Postdoctoral Researcher at Modelling, Identification, and Control Engineering Lab, University of GironaPoint 5 ? A research paper under the influence of such kind of "confirmation bias" will never convey the science aptly.
1 Comment on Omer Mujahid’s comment
Andrew AkbashevAuthor
Scientist (PI) | Creator & Speaker for Academia | ex-StanfordExactly!
Aleksejs Fomins • 3rd+
Dr. Sc. UZH | Data Science/Engineering | Mathematical Modeling, Statistics | Project ManagementWhen publications return to being a tool to communicate, as opposed to being a proof of work, then we can start rebuilding science. Till then, researchers should produce as many ai-generated publications as they can out of protest. Current performance assessment will lead science to collapse. Funding agencies refuse to see it, and need our help. The sooner that happens the better
Uday Debnath • 3rd+
Engineer | Learner | MaverickVery helpful!
Ankur Goel • 3rd+
IT Leadership || Quantum Technologies || Quantum Machine Learning.(edited)
And please understand your audience, you need not write a 70 page paper to explain the concepts, you can provide citations for both background study and further read, but please come to the point directly as to what are you trying to establish and what you did established.
Krishnanjan Sil • 3rd+
Citizen Scientist || Pursuing B.Sc. Physics (Honours) || Interested in Theoretical Physics, Gravitational Wave Astronomy, Relativity, and Quantum ComputingInsightful
Stephanie Collins • 2nd
PhD student working on the environmental and economic impacts of clean hydrogen.This is so true. My first, first-author paper is currently in review and the process to get there was LONG between the struggle to actually write the narrative and reframe the data as things changed through consultation with my co-authors. I am excited to see the payoff though so it will all be worth it!
Tobias Münch • 3rd+
CTO @ Münch Ges. für IT- Solutions mbH | Empower your Speech to interact with PWAIt takes some time to write good papers, but - just speak for myself - really helpful is an internal reading circle of other scientist. The feedback, the discussion and other perspektive are incredibly useful. Thank you Andreas Schmidt Thomas Kosch Sebastian Heil Maaz Amjad Martin Gaedke
Raul A. Marquez • 3rd+
Ph.D. Candidate, Chemistry at The University of Texas at AustinChikaodili Chukwuneke check this out!
khyati Raghunath C. • 2nd
PhD Candidate in Molecular and Cell Biology | Research Assistant | Teaching Assistant | Bioinformatician | Computational Biologist | Machine Learning | 3D Genome | Cancer genomicsThank you for sharing these quotes. Very helpful for PhD students like myself who are in process of writing their research paper.
Hariprasad Narayanan • 3rd+
Research Assistant @ National Centre for Catalysis Research, IIT Madras | PHD in Carbon Dioxide ConversionI am curious to know the responses from the PhD and postdocs of the respective authors of the article. ????
評論
目前還沒有任何評論
登錄後才可評論.
