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/
Most researchers waste months on a systematic review
(when a rapid review would have been good enough.)
Two review types. Same question.
Completely different amount of work.
According to this paper, 14 literature review types exist.
If you get started, focus on 2 main types:
(when a rapid review would have been good enough.)
Two review types. Same question.
Completely different amount of work.
According to this paper, 14 literature review types exist.
If you get started, focus on 2 main types:
November 25, 2025 at 10:00 PM
Most researchers waste months on a systematic review
(when a rapid review would have been good enough.)
Two review types. Same question.
Completely different amount of work.
According to this paper, 14 literature review types exist.
If you get started, focus on 2 main types:
(when a rapid review would have been good enough.)
Two review types. Same question.
Completely different amount of work.
According to this paper, 14 literature review types exist.
If you get started, focus on 2 main types:
Most researchers lose readers in the first 100 words.
Here’s how to write an abstract that actually gets read:
After reviewing 100+ papers,
here’s the formula I give my students.
Write an abstract that will get your paper noticed.
An abstract isn’t just a summary.
Here’s how to write an abstract that actually gets read:
After reviewing 100+ papers,
here’s the formula I give my students.
Write an abstract that will get your paper noticed.
An abstract isn’t just a summary.
November 23, 2025 at 5:56 AM
Most researchers lose readers in the first 100 words.
Here’s how to write an abstract that actually gets read:
After reviewing 100+ papers,
here’s the formula I give my students.
Write an abstract that will get your paper noticed.
An abstract isn’t just a summary.
Here’s how to write an abstract that actually gets read:
After reviewing 100+ papers,
here’s the formula I give my students.
Write an abstract that will get your paper noticed.
An abstract isn’t just a summary.
Most research dies before it ever reaches a journal
And it’s completely avoidable.
The real reason your thesis never becomes a paper
isn’t quality but bad strategy.
I’ve helped more than 100 students turn theses into accepted papers.
After 15 years supervising graduate researchers,
And it’s completely avoidable.
The real reason your thesis never becomes a paper
isn’t quality but bad strategy.
I’ve helped more than 100 students turn theses into accepted papers.
After 15 years supervising graduate researchers,
November 21, 2025 at 12:14 PM
Most research dies before it ever reaches a journal
And it’s completely avoidable.
The real reason your thesis never becomes a paper
isn’t quality but bad strategy.
I’ve helped more than 100 students turn theses into accepted papers.
After 15 years supervising graduate researchers,
And it’s completely avoidable.
The real reason your thesis never becomes a paper
isn’t quality but bad strategy.
I’ve helped more than 100 students turn theses into accepted papers.
After 15 years supervising graduate researchers,
3 must-have PhD skills everyone should know:
1. Reference Management (Zotero or bust)
2. Academic Bulls*1t Detection
3. The ability to say NEIN to extra teaching hours.
1. Reference Management (Zotero or bust)
2. Academic Bulls*1t Detection
3. The ability to say NEIN to extra teaching hours.
November 21, 2025 at 6:00 AM
3 must-have PhD skills everyone should know:
1. Reference Management (Zotero or bust)
2. Academic Bulls*1t Detection
3. The ability to say NEIN to extra teaching hours.
1. Reference Management (Zotero or bust)
2. Academic Bulls*1t Detection
3. The ability to say NEIN to extra teaching hours.
90% of desk rejections happen for one reason.
The research question fails the "So What?" test.
The problem isn’t your literature review or methods.
It’s a research question that lacks a spine.
An excellent RQ is the backbone.
It drives your method.
It defines your contribution.
The research question fails the "So What?" test.
The problem isn’t your literature review or methods.
It’s a research question that lacks a spine.
An excellent RQ is the backbone.
It drives your method.
It defines your contribution.
November 20, 2025 at 12:17 PM
90% of desk rejections happen for one reason.
The research question fails the "So What?" test.
The problem isn’t your literature review or methods.
It’s a research question that lacks a spine.
An excellent RQ is the backbone.
It drives your method.
It defines your contribution.
The research question fails the "So What?" test.
The problem isn’t your literature review or methods.
It’s a research question that lacks a spine.
An excellent RQ is the backbone.
It drives your method.
It defines your contribution.
Google just killed keyword search
But most researchers haven’t noticed yet.
That's a mistake.
The era of guessing keywords is over.
Google released Gemini 3 yesterday and it's amazing.
But Scholar Labs changes how gaps are discovered.
But most researchers haven’t noticed yet.
That's a mistake.
The era of guessing keywords is over.
Google released Gemini 3 yesterday and it's amazing.
But Scholar Labs changes how gaps are discovered.
November 19, 2025 at 10:15 PM
Google just killed keyword search
But most researchers haven’t noticed yet.
That's a mistake.
The era of guessing keywords is over.
Google released Gemini 3 yesterday and it's amazing.
But Scholar Labs changes how gaps are discovered.
But most researchers haven’t noticed yet.
That's a mistake.
The era of guessing keywords is over.
Google released Gemini 3 yesterday and it's amazing.
But Scholar Labs changes how gaps are discovered.
Most PhD students pick research topics that waste 3 years of their life.
They choose topics nobody cares about or topics where 50 labs already compete.
Both destroy careers before they start.
But there's a simple test that predicts this...
They choose topics nobody cares about or topics where 50 labs already compete.
Both destroy careers before they start.
But there's a simple test that predicts this...
November 13, 2025 at 12:13 PM
Most PhD students pick research topics that waste 3 years of their life.
They choose topics nobody cares about or topics where 50 labs already compete.
Both destroy careers before they start.
But there's a simple test that predicts this...
They choose topics nobody cares about or topics where 50 labs already compete.
Both destroy careers before they start.
But there's a simple test that predicts this...
Your research pitch fails three tests.
After supervising 10+ PhDs to completion
and reviewing 50+ grant applications,
I've identified the clarity killers.
Here's the three-filter stress test:
After supervising 10+ PhDs to completion
and reviewing 50+ grant applications,
I've identified the clarity killers.
Here's the three-filter stress test:
November 12, 2025 at 3:58 AM
Your research pitch fails three tests.
After supervising 10+ PhDs to completion
and reviewing 50+ grant applications,
I've identified the clarity killers.
Here's the three-filter stress test:
After supervising 10+ PhDs to completion
and reviewing 50+ grant applications,
I've identified the clarity killers.
Here's the three-filter stress test:
During my PhD, I burnt out chasing perfect papers.
Until I realized habits scale harder than hours.
Hard work doesn’t finish a thesis early.
Smart structure does.
I built a framework that multiplied my focus overnight.
You don’t need more focus.
You need fewer decisions.
Here is what works:
Until I realized habits scale harder than hours.
Hard work doesn’t finish a thesis early.
Smart structure does.
I built a framework that multiplied my focus overnight.
You don’t need more focus.
You need fewer decisions.
Here is what works:
November 7, 2025 at 6:03 AM
During my PhD, I burnt out chasing perfect papers.
Until I realized habits scale harder than hours.
Hard work doesn’t finish a thesis early.
Smart structure does.
I built a framework that multiplied my focus overnight.
You don’t need more focus.
You need fewer decisions.
Here is what works:
Until I realized habits scale harder than hours.
Hard work doesn’t finish a thesis early.
Smart structure does.
I built a framework that multiplied my focus overnight.
You don’t need more focus.
You need fewer decisions.
Here is what works:
Never mirror R2’s hostility.
Your professionalism becomes a contrast that editors notice.
When Reviewer 2’s tone crosses into hostility, use this decoder:
Your professionalism becomes a contrast that editors notice.
When Reviewer 2’s tone crosses into hostility, use this decoder:
November 6, 2025 at 8:46 PM
Never mirror R2’s hostility.
Your professionalism becomes a contrast that editors notice.
When Reviewer 2’s tone crosses into hostility, use this decoder:
Your professionalism becomes a contrast that editors notice.
When Reviewer 2’s tone crosses into hostility, use this decoder:
Turn So what? into a funded argument for your next research proposal.
Make yours explicit with this table:
1. Academic impact
2. Practical impact
3. Societal impact
Funding agencies think in impact tiers, not chapters.
Make yours explicit with this table:
1. Academic impact
2. Practical impact
3. Societal impact
Funding agencies think in impact tiers, not chapters.
November 5, 2025 at 5:57 AM
Turn So what? into a funded argument for your next research proposal.
Make yours explicit with this table:
1. Academic impact
2. Practical impact
3. Societal impact
Funding agencies think in impact tiers, not chapters.
Make yours explicit with this table:
1. Academic impact
2. Practical impact
3. Societal impact
Funding agencies think in impact tiers, not chapters.
Research papers don't have a clarity problem.
They have a skimming problem.
After reviewing 200+ paper submissions,
I stopped trusting linear writing.
Reviewers don't read linearly.
They skim in 4 predictable jumps.
Format accordingly.
They have a skimming problem.
After reviewing 200+ paper submissions,
I stopped trusting linear writing.
Reviewers don't read linearly.
They skim in 4 predictable jumps.
Format accordingly.
November 4, 2025 at 12:13 PM
Research papers don't have a clarity problem.
They have a skimming problem.
After reviewing 200+ paper submissions,
I stopped trusting linear writing.
Reviewers don't read linearly.
They skim in 4 predictable jumps.
Format accordingly.
They have a skimming problem.
After reviewing 200+ paper submissions,
I stopped trusting linear writing.
Reviewers don't read linearly.
They skim in 4 predictable jumps.
Format accordingly.
When evaluating a literature review:
Be consistent between how studies report and how you judge them.
Reporting vs Appraisal Quick Reference Below
Be consistent between how studies report and how you judge them.
Reporting vs Appraisal Quick Reference Below
November 4, 2025 at 6:03 AM
When evaluating a literature review:
Be consistent between how studies report and how you judge them.
Reporting vs Appraisal Quick Reference Below
Be consistent between how studies report and how you judge them.
Reporting vs Appraisal Quick Reference Below
After reviewing almost 100 papers for CHI,
I've noticed awesome research get killed on page 1.
Your paper has 8,000+ words.
Reviewers spend < 3 minutes to form an impression.
If they can't see why your work matters,
how you proved it, and what changes.
They reject it.
I've noticed awesome research get killed on page 1.
Your paper has 8,000+ words.
Reviewers spend < 3 minutes to form an impression.
If they can't see why your work matters,
how you proved it, and what changes.
They reject it.
November 3, 2025 at 10:02 PM
After reviewing almost 100 papers for CHI,
I've noticed awesome research get killed on page 1.
Your paper has 8,000+ words.
Reviewers spend < 3 minutes to form an impression.
If they can't see why your work matters,
how you proved it, and what changes.
They reject it.
I've noticed awesome research get killed on page 1.
Your paper has 8,000+ words.
Reviewers spend < 3 minutes to form an impression.
If they can't see why your work matters,
how you proved it, and what changes.
They reject it.
I used to believe significant meant true.
Then I reviewed 1000+ studies.
20 years in research taught me one thing:
Data rarely tells the full story.
But the science isn’t broken.
Our interpretation of it is.
Most researchers trust weak evidence.
Here’s how to never fall into that trap:
Then I reviewed 1000+ studies.
20 years in research taught me one thing:
Data rarely tells the full story.
But the science isn’t broken.
Our interpretation of it is.
Most researchers trust weak evidence.
Here’s how to never fall into that trap:
November 2, 2025 at 12:11 PM
I used to believe significant meant true.
Then I reviewed 1000+ studies.
20 years in research taught me one thing:
Data rarely tells the full story.
But the science isn’t broken.
Our interpretation of it is.
Most researchers trust weak evidence.
Here’s how to never fall into that trap:
Then I reviewed 1000+ studies.
20 years in research taught me one thing:
Data rarely tells the full story.
But the science isn’t broken.
Our interpretation of it is.
Most researchers trust weak evidence.
Here’s how to never fall into that trap:
Harvard just admitted their grading system is broken.
About 60% of grades are now As.
Two decades ago? Only 25%.
Faculty say grades don't match work quality anymore.
Sound familiar? Your PhD program faces the same crisis.
Grade inflation is everywhere.
About 60% of grades are now As.
Two decades ago? Only 25%.
Faculty say grades don't match work quality anymore.
Sound familiar? Your PhD program faces the same crisis.
Grade inflation is everywhere.
November 1, 2025 at 11:12 AM
Harvard just admitted their grading system is broken.
About 60% of grades are now As.
Two decades ago? Only 25%.
Faculty say grades don't match work quality anymore.
Sound familiar? Your PhD program faces the same crisis.
Grade inflation is everywhere.
About 60% of grades are now As.
Two decades ago? Only 25%.
Faculty say grades don't match work quality anymore.
Sound familiar? Your PhD program faces the same crisis.
Grade inflation is everywhere.
Professors call it progress. Their students call it burnout.
Academia rewards exhaustion.
Then wonders why no one’s thriving.
Papers, deadlines, emails. It's killing your potential.
Most professors don’t see it.
Academia rewards exhaustion.
Then wonders why no one’s thriving.
Papers, deadlines, emails. It's killing your potential.
Most professors don’t see it.
October 31, 2025 at 4:57 PM
Professors call it progress. Their students call it burnout.
Academia rewards exhaustion.
Then wonders why no one’s thriving.
Papers, deadlines, emails. It's killing your potential.
Most professors don’t see it.
Academia rewards exhaustion.
Then wonders why no one’s thriving.
Papers, deadlines, emails. It's killing your potential.
Most professors don’t see it.
Should you quit your PhD?
Here's a quick test (and food for thought).
If >70% of your reasons align with the strategic column,
you’re not giving up on your PhD, you’re optimizing your life.
Here's a quick test (and food for thought).
If >70% of your reasons align with the strategic column,
you’re not giving up on your PhD, you’re optimizing your life.
October 31, 2025 at 11:15 AM
Should you quit your PhD?
Here's a quick test (and food for thought).
If >70% of your reasons align with the strategic column,
you’re not giving up on your PhD, you’re optimizing your life.
Here's a quick test (and food for thought).
If >70% of your reasons align with the strategic column,
you’re not giving up on your PhD, you’re optimizing your life.
I became obsessed with perfect AI prompts.
And forgot progress comes from imperfect testing.
AI actually slowed me down in five specific ways.
Each one cost me hours per week.
But it's not all bad. Often I got better quality output.
It's just not the time saver for everything, everywhere.
And forgot progress comes from imperfect testing.
AI actually slowed me down in five specific ways.
Each one cost me hours per week.
But it's not all bad. Often I got better quality output.
It's just not the time saver for everything, everywhere.
October 31, 2025 at 5:00 AM
I became obsessed with perfect AI prompts.
And forgot progress comes from imperfect testing.
AI actually slowed me down in five specific ways.
Each one cost me hours per week.
But it's not all bad. Often I got better quality output.
It's just not the time saver for everything, everywhere.
And forgot progress comes from imperfect testing.
AI actually slowed me down in five specific ways.
Each one cost me hours per week.
But it's not all bad. Often I got better quality output.
It's just not the time saver for everything, everywhere.
Rejected within 24 hours.
That’s how my academic journey really started.
My writing has never been the same since.
Here’s what I learned from 300+ submissions:
Too many papers get rejected instantly.
That’s how my academic journey really started.
My writing has never been the same since.
Here’s what I learned from 300+ submissions:
Too many papers get rejected instantly.
October 30, 2025 at 11:11 AM
Rejected within 24 hours.
That’s how my academic journey really started.
My writing has never been the same since.
Here’s what I learned from 300+ submissions:
Too many papers get rejected instantly.
That’s how my academic journey really started.
My writing has never been the same since.
Here’s what I learned from 300+ submissions:
Too many papers get rejected instantly.
Your PhD shouldn’t be a loyalty test.
Smart researchers quit faster (and win more).
Strategic quitting is the most underrated PhD skill.
Here's why:
Smart researchers quit faster (and win more).
Strategic quitting is the most underrated PhD skill.
Here's why:
October 29, 2025 at 2:59 PM
Your PhD shouldn’t be a loyalty test.
Smart researchers quit faster (and win more).
Strategic quitting is the most underrated PhD skill.
Here's why:
Smart researchers quit faster (and win more).
Strategic quitting is the most underrated PhD skill.
Here's why:
Even in technical papers, readers feel tension and resolution.
The stages & emotion:
Introduction: Curiosity → urgency.
Related Work: Confusion → clarity.
Methods: Doubt → confidence.
Results: Anticipation → discovery.
Discussion: Surprise → understanding.
Conclusion: Insight → inspiration.
The stages & emotion:
Introduction: Curiosity → urgency.
Related Work: Confusion → clarity.
Methods: Doubt → confidence.
Results: Anticipation → discovery.
Discussion: Surprise → understanding.
Conclusion: Insight → inspiration.
October 29, 2025 at 2:59 AM
Even in technical papers, readers feel tension and resolution.
The stages & emotion:
Introduction: Curiosity → urgency.
Related Work: Confusion → clarity.
Methods: Doubt → confidence.
Results: Anticipation → discovery.
Discussion: Surprise → understanding.
Conclusion: Insight → inspiration.
The stages & emotion:
Introduction: Curiosity → urgency.
Related Work: Confusion → clarity.
Methods: Doubt → confidence.
Results: Anticipation → discovery.
Discussion: Surprise → understanding.
Conclusion: Insight → inspiration.
Most savvy reviewers ask about statistical power.
But most students can't answer adequately.
The result?
Delayed publications and damaged credibility.
These are the questions they'll ask.
Here are the answers that satisfy reviewers:
But most students can't answer adequately.
The result?
Delayed publications and damaged credibility.
These are the questions they'll ask.
Here are the answers that satisfy reviewers:
October 22, 2025 at 11:16 AM
Most savvy reviewers ask about statistical power.
But most students can't answer adequately.
The result?
Delayed publications and damaged credibility.
These are the questions they'll ask.
Here are the answers that satisfy reviewers:
But most students can't answer adequately.
The result?
Delayed publications and damaged credibility.
These are the questions they'll ask.
Here are the answers that satisfy reviewers:
Most people think critical thinking means finding flaws.
But true critical thinking goes deeper.
The real skill lies in identifying gaps.
You hunt for what's missing, not just for what’s wrong.
And this 4-step framework shows you exactly how.
But true critical thinking goes deeper.
The real skill lies in identifying gaps.
You hunt for what's missing, not just for what’s wrong.
And this 4-step framework shows you exactly how.
October 22, 2025 at 5:00 AM
Most people think critical thinking means finding flaws.
But true critical thinking goes deeper.
The real skill lies in identifying gaps.
You hunt for what's missing, not just for what’s wrong.
And this 4-step framework shows you exactly how.
But true critical thinking goes deeper.
The real skill lies in identifying gaps.
You hunt for what's missing, not just for what’s wrong.
And this 4-step framework shows you exactly how.
How to write a thesis statement in just 7 easy steps?
The SECRET to a strong dissertation.
Don't announce instead of argue.
Don't observe instead of claim.
Don't ramble instead of focus.
A thesis statement is the central claim of an article.
The SECRET to a strong dissertation.
Don't announce instead of argue.
Don't observe instead of claim.
Don't ramble instead of focus.
A thesis statement is the central claim of an article.
October 22, 2025 at 2:59 AM
How to write a thesis statement in just 7 easy steps?
The SECRET to a strong dissertation.
Don't announce instead of argue.
Don't observe instead of claim.
Don't ramble instead of focus.
A thesis statement is the central claim of an article.
The SECRET to a strong dissertation.
Don't announce instead of argue.
Don't observe instead of claim.
Don't ramble instead of focus.
A thesis statement is the central claim of an article.