Writing For Scientific Journals

After a highly public launch failure, Jeff Wilke (then CEO of Amazon Retail) distrusted every part of my team’s product. Here’s how I advocated for my team and product when my executive was angry: My team had screwed up the logic to display or hide a button on a web page. For technical readers, the young engineer working on it made a direct database check each time the web page was displayed. This worked just fine in testing but failed immediately under high load. Jeff was understandably frustrated with us and became skeptical about everything else we had built given that we had made this rookie mistake. This caused him to question the entire product and push us to rebuild it or shelve it entirely. Rebuilding the product would have been labor-intensive and wasteful, so I eventually leveled with him. I spoke directly, confidently, and calmly. My argument was reasonable but firm. I said, “Look, we screwed up the implementation of a button on a web page. Absolutely a terrible mistake, and if you want to punish us for it, I understand. But the technology behind the button works just fine. Don’t throw out the working technology because we messed up a button.” The important thing was that I wasn’t fighting the blame. I accepted it—but I stood up against what would have been a wasteful next step and an unfair judgment of the technology based on one miss. After I made my case, Jeff said, “That’s a pretty good argument.” He stopped pushing us to discard the technology, and he even became less upset about the problems because I wasn’t denying them. Here’s why my argument was effective: 1) I accepted blame. He knew I wasn’t denying the problem. 2) I remained calm. Emotion triggers more emotion. 3) My point was simple and firm. When you disagree with someone in a calm, agreeable manner, people will often match you. They will calm down and be able to discuss solutions, rather than just express emotions. This works because most people don’t want to be seen as ranting jerks—especially in professional settings. If they lash out at someone who is calmly stating reasonable points, they look like they’ve lost control. “Strong” leader types never want to appear out of control. Thus, if you are calm, they usually have to remain calm with you. This is an effective strategy, but it takes practice. Here are some tips to improve your responses to angry people: → Talk yourself through your response to emotional prodding before the meeting. Visualize the discussion and practice your responses. → Decide in advance: “If this escalates, I will become more quiet, calm, and firm in response.” By deciding your response in advance, you can avoid escalation. → You can always employ this technique, even if the situation has escalated. If needed, ask for a break and come back when you are feeling calmer. Readers—how else can you deal with upset executives or bosses?

Regardless of what you've been told, academic communication and dissemination is (much) more than just publishing. When I started my research career, I thought publishing papers was the key part of being successful in academia. Needles to say, was I wrong! Academic communication is a powerful ecosystem that extends far beyond peer-reviewed journals. Here are 5 critical communication channels every academic should master: 1. Conference Presentations • Storytelling matters more than dense data slides • Practice your narrative arc • Engage, don't just inform 2. Digital Platforms • Twitter/X for rapid knowledge sharing • LinkedIn for professional networking • Personal blogs for deeper insights • YouTube for visual explanations 3. Collaborative Workshops • Cross-disciplinary dialogue • Knowledge co-creation • Breaking academic silos 4. Public Engagement • Science communication podcasts • Media interviews • Community lectures • Making complex ideas accessible 5. Mentorship & Dialogue • Guiding next-generation researchers • Informal knowledge transfer • Building intellectual communities Pro Tip: Your research impact isn't measured just by publication count, but by how widely and effectively you communicate your insights. Have you expanded your academic communication beyond traditional publishing? What strategies have worked best for you? #PhD #Research #Science #Scientist #Academia #Professor #Nature #Publishing

🔍 NGOs in Horizon Europe: Your Role in Dissemination, Communication & Exploitation (DCE) Are you an NGO looking to partner in Horizon Europe projects? Your impact goes far beyond participation — you can be a key driver of visibility, uptake, and sustainability of research results. Here’s a step-by-step DCE roadmap tailored for NGOs: ✅ Dissemination Identify key results with societal relevance. Map stakeholders: citizens, policymakers, media, other NGOs. Share through open-access platforms, community events, and policy briefs. Register results on platforms 📣 Communication Raise awareness using storytelling and public engagement. Use social media, newsletters, and science outreach events. Apply citizen engagement principles to boost relevance. 🚀 Exploitation Prioritize results with real-world impact. Explore licensing, spin-offs, policy integration, and educational use. Manage IP early with support from experts 📚 Knowledge Management & Capacity Building Organize and share results using FAIR principles. Train staff, build partnerships, and strengthen your organization’s innovation capacity. 🌍 NGOs bring unique value to Horizon projects — community trust, policy influence, and grassroots reach. Let’s make research matter!

Here's one of the most common mistakes people make when debating in the workplace: ✅ They act as if pointing out an exception to the rule disproves the rule. It does not. Example: → Argument (Person A): "Our stores are now growing again, in part, because we changed our pizza recipe. Overall sales are up by 16% compared to last year." → Ineffective Counter-Argument (Person B): "I know somebody who doesn't like the new recipe. They prefer the old one." Person B doesn't realize it yet, but not only did they lose this point, they also likely hurt their professional reputation. And yet, I've seen this approach used dozens of times in dozens of meetings. Here's a summary of another real-life example I once heard. → Person A: "Southwest Airlines has the highest overall customer service ratings over the long run. It's been number one in the industry year after year." → Person B: "I had a terrible experience on Southwest on my last trip." Offering one isolated example like that barely qualifies as a persuasive counter-argument. In this meeting, I heard a few people chuckle quietly and shake their heads at Person B's comment. Here's some tough love. ❤️ Pointing out an exception to the rule comes across as an out-of-touch comment from somebody who doesn't understand the way data and averages work. Offering one data point against thousands isn't going to cut it if you want to build a persuasive case for or against a position. A better approach would be . . . 1️⃣ Ask clarifying questions about Person A's argument. Maybe you'll find a weakness there. 2️⃣ Ask questions about Person A's data to make sure you fully understand it. Perhaps the data isn't as clear as Person A made it sound at first. 3️⃣ Offer (A) another interpretation of the data or (B) offer high-quality data of your own that helps tell a different story. #communicationskills #leadeship

𝗧𝗼𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀, 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝗳𝗲𝘄 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀. Opinion vs Argument. 𝗘𝘅𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲? “Sales are dropping because the market is bad.” vs “Sales dropped 12% while the overall market fell only 3%, meaning the issue is internal, not the market.” 𝗢𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗻? A personal belief (often emotional).  It may be right or wrong, and requires no evidence. 𝗔𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁? A claim backed by reasons, logic, and ideally evidence. It can be tested, debated, and falsified. How to turn opinions into strong arguments? #𝟭 𝗖𝗟𝗔𝗜𝗠 + 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗦𝗢𝗡 (𝗶𝗳 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲: 𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘) Example: “Customer churn is rising due to customer service delays.” → 40% of churned customers cite service delay as the cause. → Average wait time increased from 1.2 to 4.6 minutes. #𝟮 𝗥𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲 “𝗜 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸…” 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 “𝗕𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻…” Instead of: “I think the team is weak.” Use: “Based on last quarter’s 62% on-time delivery and 7.8% error rate, the team has a material capability gap.” 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝗯𝗶𝘁 𝗱𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴. 👉 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝘁: https://lnkd.in/gYsPFQ-3 aseptamar.com

Ever spent weeks writing a research report only to hear: “What’s the takeaway?” “I didn’t read it.” “Can you summarize it for us?” Yeah. Me too. Until I started using the Pyramid Principle. Now every report starts with the answer. And stakeholders actually act on it. Here’s the structure I use every time: 1. Start with the answer [User behavior] happens because [reason] or [Key problem] is caused by [main insight] Examples: Instead of: “We interviewed 20 users to understand the signup flow.” Try: “Users abandon signup because they don’t trust the verification step.” Instead of: “We explored why users don’t activate.” Try: “Users don’t activate because the core value is hidden behind setup.” 2. Break it down into 2-4 key reasons Ask: Why is this happening? Examples: “Users abandon checkout because they don’t trust it.” → (1) No security messaging → (2) Unclear next steps → (3) Poor error handling Tips: - Use clear numbers: “40% drop off at Step 2” - Don’t blend: Keep each reason focused and distinct 3. Back it up with evidence Pair each argument with: • 1 stat (quant) • 1 quote (qual) Example structure: Argument: Users don’t trust the payment process Quant: 40% drop-off at Step 2 Qual: “I didn’t feel safe entering my card” – Interview #6 That way, if they only read one page, they get the point.

The courtroom is loud. But great drafting is silent power. When I started out, I thought oral arguments were everything. But a senior told me: “Cases are often won before you ever open your mouth.” Here’s why drafting style matters more than we think: 1. Judges read more than they hear. Judges rely on written submissions to understand the facts, the law, and your position. If your drafting is unclear, you’ve already lost their attention—maybe the case. 2. Structure is strategy. Good drafting isn’t just about grammar—it’s about building logic. Clear headings, strong transitions, and logical flow help your argument land with precision. 3. The tone sets the mood. Aggressive, emotional language can backfire. A calm, professional tone builds credibility—and respect. 4. Brevity is power. Long-winded submissions dilute your argument. Every word should pull its weight. Edit like your case depends on it—because it does. 5. Templates help, but thinking wins. Form is helpful, but don’t let it replace thought. Judges can spot a copy-paste job. Make every sentence yours. The best drafters don’t just write—they persuade. What’s one drafting tip you swear by? #Lawpractice #FirstGenLawyers #Resilience #LegalJourney #Networking #Lawyer #Law #Advocate #Lawstudent

Reviewers called it a significant contribution. Three years later: 12 citations. I knew this: Publishing your research is one of the highest-leverage moves you can make in academia and the digital age is a brutal but brilliant place to own it. It might be your raw data, methodology, insights, or gruelling negative results. You might be running grant-funded projects or leading tight teams but if you're not clearly documenting and sharing your process, your impact will plateau. That's a fact. The single greatest skill that you can develop as a researcher is sharing your work in the absence of anything forcing you to share it. Here's what I learned after publishing 300+ papers: Most of the public doesn't question an academic who stays quiet. Because you're just heads-down on the research. Busy. So, if you can be invisible for no reason (other than feeling humble maybe), you might as well be visible for no reason because that one at least opens doors for you. Most academic work has 0 impact because nobody knows it exists. Think of your research as a map to buried treasure. You've spent years charting your territory. X marks the spot. Now ask yourself: Where is that map right now? Most academics draw the map, file it, and hope someone finds the filing cabinet. That's not a dissemination strategy. I had funding partners reach out to me. Not from a pitch deck. Not from cold outreach. From one well-placed paper and a few clear posts on LinkedIn. I've seen early-career researchers land tenure-track positions because they wrote well. Not better data. Better visibility. The search committee could find their work. Here's where academic careers stop progressing: Most researchers stop at publications. Great, you drew the map. You filed it with the archivist. They nodded approvingly. Now you're one map among millions published this year. The researchers who get cited for decades? They hand out copies. 3 layers: documented → distributed → discussed That's the journey from obscurity to influence. I now treat every paper as a distribution system: Layer 1: Documented The paper exists. Peer-reviewed, rigorous, archived. But this is the floor, not the ceiling. Most researchers stop here and wonder why nobody reads their work. Layer 2: Distributed Translate your findings for faster consumption. Threads. Posts. Talks. One paper becomes ten entry points. People find your map without visiting the archive. Layer 3: Discussed Talk about adjacent work. Build relationships. Respond to others. Your ideas spread through connection. Research that gets discussed gets remembered. One test I apply to everything I write: → Could someone outside my subfield understand why this matters? If not, rewrite the first paragraph. 📌 Save this for the day your paper gets accepted. That's when the real work starts. Join 13,000+ researchers putting their research on the map every week: https://lnkd.in/e4HfhmrH

Arguing a case is not about oratory — it’s about precision and preparation Over time, I’ve realised that effective advocacy lies not in oratory, but in the presentation of facts merged seamlessly with the applicable law. I want to share my practice of preparing notes for final oral arguments, particularly in suits and appeals (though the approach is similar for writs). 1.Start with the Issues Begin by identifying the issues framed and the onus of proof on each. Everything that follows must flow from this foundation. 2. Map the Record Scan pleadings, evidence, and documents carefully. Note the exact paragraphs and page numbers that support the issues where the onus lies on your side. Precise marking of relevant portions keeps the argument anchored and helps you hold the Court’s attention. 3. Engage the Judge While arguing, ensure the Court is following your path. Phrases like “Has your Lordship got it?” or “Please see page 47, paragraph 9” are not interruptions, they help you and the Judge remain on the same page, literally and mentally. 4. Merge Law with Facts Never argue facts in isolation. State the proposition of law, cite the authority, and merge it with your facts. This discipline keeps submissions precise and persuasive. 5. Anticipate the Other Side If time permits, become your own devil’s advocate. Identify the strongest points for the opposite side, and prepare your legal response. And if, after full preparation, you find the law is clearly against you — make a gracious concession. It saves the Court’s time and earns you credibility. For me, this “surgical” approach ensures that the Judge rarely misses the point and that I rarely lose track of mine. #Advocacy #CourtroomSkills #LitigationStrategy #LegalPractice #Preparation #OralArguments #TrialLawyers

Forget IRAC and remember this instead: Conclusions + Reasons. Persuasive advocates immediately communicate their point, then defend it by marshaling reasons. In briefs, memoranda, and oral argument, default to the structure “[Conclusion] because [Reasons].” This structure works for most argument headings and sections. It keeps arguments focused by limiting digressions, and it reminds the writer to make and defend a claim rather than mindlessly pasting quotations. When in doubt, assert a proposition, then defend it. Some guidance: • When revising a brief, confirm that each proposition advances your argument; that the propositions collectively add up to a convincing argument; and that each citation precisely supports the proposition to which it’s attached. • Argument-section point headings should state the section’s conclusion, then preview the best reason for it. The section should then explain that reason and any secondary reasons while rebutting counterarguments. • A legal reason combines one or more legal and factual propositions. Typically, the legal proposition states a rule, while the factual propositions show that the rule’s conditions are met. Legal propositions need citations to authority, while factual ones need citations to the record. • Order reasons from strongest to weakest unless logic calls for a different sequence. • The number and complexity of reasons should vary with the strength of anticipated counterarguments, the judge’s likely familiarity with the point, and the point’s importance. Incontestable points need at most one citation to an authoritative source. If every litigator adopted this approach, judges’ jobs would become much easier. For more tips on how to write convincing arguments, see Elegant Legal Writing chapters 7 (“Briefs and Motions”), 8 (“Using Legal Authority”), and 9 (“Legal Storytelling”). #legalwriting #litigation #appellate