I could totally take advantage of this to work on my grant proposal, but 9 hour train from Lausanne... 🥲

I do think, though, that when we, as junior researchers, try to advance and seek positions and develop as future professors, it is expected of us to come up with something new, ambitious, original, innovative, which is not always on par with "simplicity" and "descriptiveness".

And yet I think that those descriptive/simplistic papers are some of the most insightful. Now that I'm advancing on some project ideas, I notice that the publications that are the most informative are those that rely on very simple take-home message and a simple analysis.

The point about simplicity as theoretically/conceptually enriching resonated with my experience in publishing. Unfortunately, I've had my papers desk-rejected (by people in the field) due to the lack of (statistical) analytic complexity.

Uses and gratifications theory (2025 update)

Congrats, very interesting publication!!

The references are spot on, as always 🥵

I think this argument is absolutely valid, and it’s always tricky to establish the causal links between phenomenon “x” and mental health. I just think that it’s problematic if a specific person’s agenda is to promote harmful and simplistic assumptions about phones and media to sell a product…