Lennart Nacke, PhD
@lennartnacke.com
🧠 Tenured brain, fresh daily takes. Maximum citations but sanity questionable. The prof your prof follows for daily research & AI takes. Quality wins. University Research Chair & Tenured Full Professor.
BLACK FRIDAY SALES ➜ https://store.lennartnacke.com/
BLACK FRIDAY SALES ➜ https://store.lennartnacke.com/
Pinned
Lennart Nacke, PhD
@lennartnacke.com
· Dec 6
Mini Masterclass: How to Write a CHI Paper
Join Professor Dr. Lennart Nacke for a FREE 30-minute masterclass about How to Write a CHI Paper. Become a smarter research author and master the basics of w...
www.youtube.com
The masterclass is this Saturday, Dec 7 at 11 AM Eastern.
Join here (bookmark): www.youtube.com/live/vpj2FT...
See you tomorrow.
Join here (bookmark): www.youtube.com/live/vpj2FT...
See you tomorrow.
Your best paper is stuck behind the one you won't ship.
I’ve watched this for 20 years:
a PI keeps polishing one manuscript…
and quietly stalls three others behind it.
The draft doesn’t get better.
It gets older.
You lose context.
Co-authors move on.
The literature keeps shifting.
I’ve watched this for 20 years:
a PI keeps polishing one manuscript…
and quietly stalls three others behind it.
The draft doesn’t get better.
It gets older.
You lose context.
Co-authors move on.
The literature keeps shifting.
December 25, 2025 at 12:59 AM
Your best paper is stuck behind the one you won't ship.
I’ve watched this for 20 years:
a PI keeps polishing one manuscript…
and quietly stalls three others behind it.
The draft doesn’t get better.
It gets older.
You lose context.
Co-authors move on.
The literature keeps shifting.
I’ve watched this for 20 years:
a PI keeps polishing one manuscript…
and quietly stalls three others behind it.
The draft doesn’t get better.
It gets older.
You lose context.
Co-authors move on.
The literature keeps shifting.
A literature review is not proof that you read widely.
It is proof that you think precisely.
The papers you exclude reveal your judgment as much as the papers you include. The patterns you name reveal your analytical capacity. The gaps you surface reveal your readiness to contribute.
It is proof that you think precisely.
The papers you exclude reveal your judgment as much as the papers you include. The patterns you name reveal your analytical capacity. The gaps you surface reveal your readiness to contribute.
December 24, 2025 at 3:58 AM
A literature review is not proof that you read widely.
It is proof that you think precisely.
The papers you exclude reveal your judgment as much as the papers you include. The patterns you name reveal your analytical capacity. The gaps you surface reveal your readiness to contribute.
It is proof that you think precisely.
The papers you exclude reveal your judgment as much as the papers you include. The patterns you name reveal your analytical capacity. The gaps you surface reveal your readiness to contribute.
I thought 200 PDFs meant progress with my lit review.
But my reviewers called it a filing cabinet.
If you’re supervising MSc/PhD students
(or writing your first review),
this will save you weeks.
I've supervised dozens of graduate students.
But my reviewers called it a filing cabinet.
If you’re supervising MSc/PhD students
(or writing your first review),
this will save you weeks.
I've supervised dozens of graduate students.
December 23, 2025 at 12:18 PM
I thought 200 PDFs meant progress with my lit review.
But my reviewers called it a filing cabinet.
If you’re supervising MSc/PhD students
(or writing your first review),
this will save you weeks.
I've supervised dozens of graduate students.
But my reviewers called it a filing cabinet.
If you’re supervising MSc/PhD students
(or writing your first review),
this will save you weeks.
I've supervised dozens of graduate students.
Three questions that turned rejection into rocket fuel:
1. What did reviewers consistently misunderstand?
(That's a writing problem)
2. What criticism made me most defensive?
(That's a me problem and where truth lives)
3. What suggestion would most improve the paper?
(Do that first)
1. What did reviewers consistently misunderstand?
(That's a writing problem)
2. What criticism made me most defensive?
(That's a me problem and where truth lives)
3. What suggestion would most improve the paper?
(Do that first)
December 22, 2025 at 6:00 AM
Three questions that turned rejection into rocket fuel:
1. What did reviewers consistently misunderstand?
(That's a writing problem)
2. What criticism made me most defensive?
(That's a me problem and where truth lives)
3. What suggestion would most improve the paper?
(Do that first)
1. What did reviewers consistently misunderstand?
(That's a writing problem)
2. What criticism made me most defensive?
(That's a me problem and where truth lives)
3. What suggestion would most improve the paper?
(Do that first)
Radical transparency about rejection:
My CV shows 300+ publications.
What it doesn't show:
• 50+ rejections
• 10+ desk rejects
• 3 papers abandoned
• 2 years of thinking I wasn't cut out for academia
The successful academics around you aren't rejection-free.
They're rejection-resilient.
My CV shows 300+ publications.
What it doesn't show:
• 50+ rejections
• 10+ desk rejects
• 3 papers abandoned
• 2 years of thinking I wasn't cut out for academia
The successful academics around you aren't rejection-free.
They're rejection-resilient.
December 16, 2025 at 7:00 AM
Radical transparency about rejection:
My CV shows 300+ publications.
What it doesn't show:
• 50+ rejections
• 10+ desk rejects
• 3 papers abandoned
• 2 years of thinking I wasn't cut out for academia
The successful academics around you aren't rejection-free.
They're rejection-resilient.
My CV shows 300+ publications.
What it doesn't show:
• 50+ rejections
• 10+ desk rejects
• 3 papers abandoned
• 2 years of thinking I wasn't cut out for academia
The successful academics around you aren't rejection-free.
They're rejection-resilient.
PhDs finishing in 5+ years lack top research questions.
They should have asked simpler questions.
Some doctoral students spend six months on questions.
(They could have started collecting data in week three.)
The process is not that complicated.
They should have asked simpler questions.
Some doctoral students spend six months on questions.
(They could have started collecting data in week three.)
The process is not that complicated.
December 11, 2025 at 1:58 PM
PhDs finishing in 5+ years lack top research questions.
They should have asked simpler questions.
Some doctoral students spend six months on questions.
(They could have started collecting data in week three.)
The process is not that complicated.
They should have asked simpler questions.
Some doctoral students spend six months on questions.
(They could have started collecting data in week three.)
The process is not that complicated.
My first acceptance after many rejections taught me:
The paper wasn't accepted because I finally found the right journal.
Rejection made it worthy of acceptance.
Version 1:
My idea, unclear
Version 2:
Clearer, but weak evidence
The paper wasn't accepted because I finally found the right journal.
Rejection made it worthy of acceptance.
Version 1:
My idea, unclear
Version 2:
Clearer, but weak evidence
December 10, 2025 at 12:15 PM
My first acceptance after many rejections taught me:
The paper wasn't accepted because I finally found the right journal.
Rejection made it worthy of acceptance.
Version 1:
My idea, unclear
Version 2:
Clearer, but weak evidence
The paper wasn't accepted because I finally found the right journal.
Rejection made it worthy of acceptance.
Version 1:
My idea, unclear
Version 2:
Clearer, but weak evidence
PhD defense mindset shift:
Stop thinking:
"I hope they don't notice..."
Start thinking:
"Let me show them I noticed first..."
Stop thinking:
"I hope they don't notice..."
Start thinking:
"Let me show them I noticed first..."
December 9, 2025 at 7:00 AM
PhD defense mindset shift:
Stop thinking:
"I hope they don't notice..."
Start thinking:
"Let me show them I noticed first..."
Stop thinking:
"I hope they don't notice..."
Start thinking:
"Let me show them I noticed first..."
You can't flip from status meeting to standup overnight.
Your team will revolt.
They mistake talking for progress.
I used to force it, too. It failed.
Now I use this shadow system to change the culture in 6 weeks:
Week 1-2: Shadow System.
Week 3-4: Hybrid Mode.
Your team will revolt.
They mistake talking for progress.
I used to force it, too. It failed.
Now I use this shadow system to change the culture in 6 weeks:
Week 1-2: Shadow System.
Week 3-4: Hybrid Mode.
December 9, 2025 at 6:01 AM
You can't flip from status meeting to standup overnight.
Your team will revolt.
They mistake talking for progress.
I used to force it, too. It failed.
Now I use this shadow system to change the culture in 6 weeks:
Week 1-2: Shadow System.
Week 3-4: Hybrid Mode.
Your team will revolt.
They mistake talking for progress.
I used to force it, too. It failed.
Now I use this shadow system to change the culture in 6 weeks:
Week 1-2: Shadow System.
Week 3-4: Hybrid Mode.
Everybody thinks the introduction needs a unique hook.
I once encouraged students to be artistic, too.
It always failed.
Now I force them to just be boring.
The standard 5-move formula that gets papers accepted:
I once encouraged students to be artistic, too.
It always failed.
Now I force them to just be boring.
The standard 5-move formula that gets papers accepted:
December 8, 2025 at 10:01 PM
Everybody thinks the introduction needs a unique hook.
I once encouraged students to be artistic, too.
It always failed.
Now I force them to just be boring.
The standard 5-move formula that gets papers accepted:
I once encouraged students to be artistic, too.
It always failed.
Now I force them to just be boring.
The standard 5-move formula that gets papers accepted:
Everybody starts their paper with definitions.
It is a mistake.
If nobody is suffering, nobody cares.
I reject any draft that leads with history instead of pain.
Here is the 3-question framework I use to fix boring intros:
It is a mistake.
If nobody is suffering, nobody cares.
I reject any draft that leads with history instead of pain.
Here is the 3-question framework I use to fix boring intros:
December 8, 2025 at 12:15 PM
Everybody starts their paper with definitions.
It is a mistake.
If nobody is suffering, nobody cares.
I reject any draft that leads with history instead of pain.
Here is the 3-question framework I use to fix boring intros:
It is a mistake.
If nobody is suffering, nobody cares.
I reject any draft that leads with history instead of pain.
Here is the 3-question framework I use to fix boring intros:
I cut my weekly editing time from 15 hours to 3.
I didn't hire an editor.
I didn't stop publishing.
I just installed a filter.
The 3-part intake system that forces students to do the work:
I didn't hire an editor.
I didn't stop publishing.
I just installed a filter.
The 3-part intake system that forces students to do the work:
December 7, 2025 at 7:02 PM
I cut my weekly editing time from 15 hours to 3.
I didn't hire an editor.
I didn't stop publishing.
I just installed a filter.
The 3-part intake system that forces students to do the work:
I didn't hire an editor.
I didn't stop publishing.
I just installed a filter.
The 3-part intake system that forces students to do the work:
You need to train your team like you train a puppy.
Bad behaviour gets an immediate, neutral correction.
If you fix their errors, you are enabling them.
The zero-draft protocol I use to force ownership:
Bad behaviour gets an immediate, neutral correction.
If you fix their errors, you are enabling them.
The zero-draft protocol I use to force ownership:
December 7, 2025 at 12:11 PM
You need to train your team like you train a puppy.
Bad behaviour gets an immediate, neutral correction.
If you fix their errors, you are enabling them.
The zero-draft protocol I use to force ownership:
Bad behaviour gets an immediate, neutral correction.
If you fix their errors, you are enabling them.
The zero-draft protocol I use to force ownership:
Everybody expects the PI to fix the writing.
I used to accept messy drafts, too.
I spent hours grading unformatted thoughts.
It was a mistake.
Here is the signed ticket rule I use now:
I used to accept messy drafts, too.
I spent hours grading unformatted thoughts.
It was a mistake.
Here is the signed ticket rule I use now:
December 7, 2025 at 6:03 AM
Everybody expects the PI to fix the writing.
I used to accept messy drafts, too.
I spent hours grading unformatted thoughts.
It was a mistake.
Here is the signed ticket rule I use now:
I used to accept messy drafts, too.
I spent hours grading unformatted thoughts.
It was a mistake.
Here is the signed ticket rule I use now:
Most lab meetings are dead weight.
I've spent years optimizing research operations to stop the drift and keep students shipping.
The 15-Minute Accountability Playbook:
I've spent years optimizing research operations to stop the drift and keep students shipping.
The 15-Minute Accountability Playbook:
December 6, 2025 at 7:00 PM
Most lab meetings are dead weight.
I've spent years optimizing research operations to stop the drift and keep students shipping.
The 15-Minute Accountability Playbook:
I've spent years optimizing research operations to stop the drift and keep students shipping.
The 15-Minute Accountability Playbook:
The single most valuable document for a new collaboration:
The Authorship Prenup.
Specifically, the Drop-Off Clause.
Use this template to stop passengers from slowing down your papers:
The Authorship Prenup.
Specifically, the Drop-Off Clause.
Use this template to stop passengers from slowing down your papers:
December 6, 2025 at 12:12 PM
The single most valuable document for a new collaboration:
The Authorship Prenup.
Specifically, the Drop-Off Clause.
Use this template to stop passengers from slowing down your papers:
The Authorship Prenup.
Specifically, the Drop-Off Clause.
Use this template to stop passengers from slowing down your papers:
Everybody uses jargon to signal expertise.
I used to let it slide, too.
Then I realized reviewers were rejecting us simply because they didn't understand the terms.
Here is the jargon audit list I now pin above every desk:
I used to let it slide, too.
Then I realized reviewers were rejecting us simply because they didn't understand the terms.
Here is the jargon audit list I now pin above every desk:
December 6, 2025 at 5:56 AM
Everybody uses jargon to signal expertise.
I used to let it slide, too.
Then I realized reviewers were rejecting us simply because they didn't understand the terms.
Here is the jargon audit list I now pin above every desk:
I used to let it slide, too.
Then I realized reviewers were rejecting us simply because they didn't understand the terms.
Here is the jargon audit list I now pin above every desk:
Every paragraph should be summarizable in one sentence.
If you can't summarize a paragraph in one sentence, it's doing too much.
Split it.
If you can't summarize a paragraph in one sentence, it's doing too much.
Split it.
December 5, 2025 at 6:04 PM
Every paragraph should be summarizable in one sentence.
If you can't summarize a paragraph in one sentence, it's doing too much.
Split it.
If you can't summarize a paragraph in one sentence, it's doing too much.
Split it.
Stop rewriting entire drafts.
You're not a copy editor.
You're supposed to be leading.
When a draft lands on your desk:
You're not a copy editor.
You're supposed to be leading.
When a draft lands on your desk:
December 5, 2025 at 12:57 PM
Stop rewriting entire drafts.
You're not a copy editor.
You're supposed to be leading.
When a draft lands on your desk:
You're not a copy editor.
You're supposed to be leading.
When a draft lands on your desk:
Reviewers read your paper at their worst.
They are tired, distracted, and resentful.
Yet most students proofread at their best:
Fresh, caffeinated, and focused.
This mismatch kills papers.
The 9 PM Stress Test we use to simulate the rejection zone:
They are tired, distracted, and resentful.
Yet most students proofread at their best:
Fresh, caffeinated, and focused.
This mismatch kills papers.
The 9 PM Stress Test we use to simulate the rejection zone:
December 5, 2025 at 12:13 PM
Reviewers read your paper at their worst.
They are tired, distracted, and resentful.
Yet most students proofread at their best:
Fresh, caffeinated, and focused.
This mismatch kills papers.
The 9 PM Stress Test we use to simulate the rejection zone:
They are tired, distracted, and resentful.
Yet most students proofread at their best:
Fresh, caffeinated, and focused.
This mismatch kills papers.
The 9 PM Stress Test we use to simulate the rejection zone:
🏃➡️ Your pre-submission clarity sprint
48 hours before submission, run this:
Hour 1: Read paper aloud. Mark every stumble.
Hour 2: Fix stumbles.
Hour 3: Delete 10% of word count. (Yes, 10%. It's always possible.)
Hour 4: Read only first sentences of each paragraph. Fix broken flow.
48 hours before submission, run this:
Hour 1: Read paper aloud. Mark every stumble.
Hour 2: Fix stumbles.
Hour 3: Delete 10% of word count. (Yes, 10%. It's always possible.)
Hour 4: Read only first sentences of each paragraph. Fix broken flow.
December 5, 2025 at 6:01 AM
🏃➡️ Your pre-submission clarity sprint
48 hours before submission, run this:
Hour 1: Read paper aloud. Mark every stumble.
Hour 2: Fix stumbles.
Hour 3: Delete 10% of word count. (Yes, 10%. It's always possible.)
Hour 4: Read only first sentences of each paragraph. Fix broken flow.
48 hours before submission, run this:
Hour 1: Read paper aloud. Mark every stumble.
Hour 2: Fix stumbles.
Hour 3: Delete 10% of word count. (Yes, 10%. It's always possible.)
Hour 4: Read only first sentences of each paragraph. Fix broken flow.
These academic phrases add zero value.
Delete on sight:
• "There is evidence to suggest that…"
• "It is worth mentioning that…"
• "It is important to note that…"
• "In order to…" (just use "to")
• "As previously mentioned…"
• "It has been shown that…"
• "The fact that…"
Delete on sight:
• "There is evidence to suggest that…"
• "It is worth mentioning that…"
• "It is important to note that…"
• "In order to…" (just use "to")
• "As previously mentioned…"
• "It has been shown that…"
• "The fact that…"
December 5, 2025 at 1:04 AM
These academic phrases add zero value.
Delete on sight:
• "There is evidence to suggest that…"
• "It is worth mentioning that…"
• "It is important to note that…"
• "In order to…" (just use "to")
• "As previously mentioned…"
• "It has been shown that…"
• "The fact that…"
Delete on sight:
• "There is evidence to suggest that…"
• "It is worth mentioning that…"
• "It is important to note that…"
• "In order to…" (just use "to")
• "As previously mentioned…"
• "It has been shown that…"
• "The fact that…"
Stop sending vague feedback to your team.
Vague feedback creates more work for you.
Use this format:
"In [SECTION], the current draft [DESCRIBES PROBLEM]. Please revise so that [SPECIFIC OUTCOME]. Use [SPECIFIC TECHNIQUE]. Return by [DATE]."
Vague feedback creates more work for you.
Use this format:
"In [SECTION], the current draft [DESCRIBES PROBLEM]. Please revise so that [SPECIFIC OUTCOME]. Use [SPECIFIC TECHNIQUE]. Return by [DATE]."
December 4, 2025 at 9:13 PM
Stop sending vague feedback to your team.
Vague feedback creates more work for you.
Use this format:
"In [SECTION], the current draft [DESCRIBES PROBLEM]. Please revise so that [SPECIFIC OUTCOME]. Use [SPECIFIC TECHNIQUE]. Return by [DATE]."
Vague feedback creates more work for you.
Use this format:
"In [SECTION], the current draft [DESCRIBES PROBLEM]. Please revise so that [SPECIFIC OUTCOME]. Use [SPECIFIC TECHNIQUE]. Return by [DATE]."
Here's what nobody tells you about journal rejections:
Desk rejections sting most but mean little.
Editors are rejecting fit, not quality.
Rejection after review hurts less but means more.
Real scholars critiqued your work and found it lacking.
But that second type?
That's where growth happens.
Desk rejections sting most but mean little.
Editors are rejecting fit, not quality.
Rejection after review hurts less but means more.
Real scholars critiqued your work and found it lacking.
But that second type?
That's where growth happens.
December 4, 2025 at 8:00 PM
Here's what nobody tells you about journal rejections:
Desk rejections sting most but mean little.
Editors are rejecting fit, not quality.
Rejection after review hurts less but means more.
Real scholars critiqued your work and found it lacking.
But that second type?
That's where growth happens.
Desk rejections sting most but mean little.
Editors are rejecting fit, not quality.
Rejection after review hurts less but means more.
Real scholars critiqued your work and found it lacking.
But that second type?
That's where growth happens.
Budget killed your ideal methodology?
Good.
Video also killed the radio star.
Now you can talk about:
• Creative problem-solving
• Innovative approaches
• Resourcefulness
Be that Fresh Prince of Bel Air.
Good.
Video also killed the radio star.
Now you can talk about:
• Creative problem-solving
• Innovative approaches
• Resourcefulness
Be that Fresh Prince of Bel Air.
December 3, 2025 at 12:15 PM
Budget killed your ideal methodology?
Good.
Video also killed the radio star.
Now you can talk about:
• Creative problem-solving
• Innovative approaches
• Resourcefulness
Be that Fresh Prince of Bel Air.
Good.
Video also killed the radio star.
Now you can talk about:
• Creative problem-solving
• Innovative approaches
• Resourcefulness
Be that Fresh Prince of Bel Air.