Most papers put reviewers to sleep.

Fix your next publication:

• Drop 60% of unecessary discussion, focus on key finding
• End with "Here's why this matters to you"
• Start with conflict, not just background

Data tells.
Story sells.

Even in academia.

(Image: Katrin Wietek)

Even novel research fails without effective storytelling.

Here's what transforms dry data into compelling narratives:

1. Limbic Hook

• Share a story about contradicting literature
• Open with an unexpected question
• Present a counterintuitive finding

2. Narrative Arc

Problem → Challenge → Discovery → Contribution

Hook them.
Build anticipation.
Have a big insightful reveal.
Resolve it with a satisfying ending.

Build tension with problem before revealing results

Transforming Academic Papers into Compelling Narratives

Grant rejected again? No more funding?

3 ways to succeed next time:

• Submit to smaller foundations first for feedback
• Have a junior PI with fresh ideas review it
• Split your aims into separate grants

Better proposals come from failing differently.
Not from failing less.

Why do research papers fail before the first word is written?

Because authors skip the most critical step:

They never define who needs to read their work.

Your tenure committee won't care about total downloads.
They want citations from the right scholars.
That's the right kind of impact.

Here's what successful academics do differently:

They ask at least 3 questions before writing:

1. Who actually needs these findings?

• Focus on researchers tackling similar problems
• Target the scholars advancing your field
• Write for future collaborators

2. What do these readers really need?

• Insights that solve their challenges
• Clear methods they can replicate
• Results they can build upon

Same excuse, different demons.

The truth about academic paralysis:

I see this daily in academia:

"I'll start writing when I feel ready"
*actually means*
"I'm afraid my work isn't good enough"

These two mindsets feed each other:
(like ferocious little wendigos)

Both steal your best years of research

1. Procrastination is fear of failure disguised as perfectionism

• "Just one more revision"
• "I need more research"
• "It's not ready yet"

2. Imposter syndrome is success anxiety masked as self-doubt

• "Others are more qualified"
• "My ideas aren't original enough" 
• "Someone will expose me as a fraud"

Real deal though:

You don't overcome these by waiting to feel ready or confident.
You beat them through consistent action.

Start writing that paper.
Submit that grant proposal.
Share your research findings.

The future is for those who believe in their dreams.

Perfect timing doesn't exist.
But perfect practice does.

And it starts with doing the work.

The best academics I know still feel like imposters.
They just learned to work through it.

Action beats anxiety.
Every. Single. Time.

Academic Paralysis: Confronting Fear and Self-Doubt

The best grant writing advice you'll hear today:

(60-second professor's guide to grant proposals)

The "Logic Model" Framework for grants that get funded.

Every proposal I write focuses on:

1. The impact pathway
2. The resource plan
3. The measurement
4. The "ROI"

My biggest mistake before?
Weak connections between steps.

Here's a framework I use religiously now:

1. Impact pathway (vision)
↳ "This research will improve remote collaboration efficiency by 60%"

2. Resource planning (feasibility)
↳ "Two-year project using mixed reality expertise and industry partners"

3. Measurement strategy (steps)
↳ "Multi-method data collection protocol"

4. Return on investment (value for funder)
↳ "This $1M grant transforms a $40B remote work market"

Your logic model creates a chain:
Investment → Action → Results → Return

Show the rigour to gain trust.
But keep the technical jargon low.

Demonstrate the technical depth.
But make them see the human impact.

And how, because of your impact, you're worth funding.

This 2025 grant season, make every step justify the next.

P.S. What are your 2025 grant goals?

The Logic Model Framework for Winning Grants

Every day, you watch your students' eyes glaze over as you ask the same tired questions. You know they're capable of more, but the traditional 'Who knows the answer?' approach isn't cutting it anymore.

Stop asking boring questions in your classroom.

This matrix changed everything about how I understood teaching.

(And I'd like to think my students' critical thinking skills improved)

Most instructors stick to the basic questions:

→ "Does anyone know?"
→ "What's the answer?"
→ "Who can tell me?"

But these create passive learners who just memorize facts.

Here's what transformed my classroom:

The Question Matrix (q-matrix) unlocks 6 levels of thinking:

1. Present (IS/DO)
↪︎Questions about what's happening right now
↪︎Gets students to observe and describe

2. Past (DID)
↪︎Questions about what happened
↪︎Builds connection to prior knowledge

3. Possibility (CAN)
↪︎Questions about what's possible
↪︎Sparks creative problem-solving

4. Probability (WOULD)
↪︎Questions about likely scenarios
↪︎Develops analytical thinking

5. Prediction (WILL)
↪︎Questions about future outcomes
↪︎Strengthens forecasting abilities

6. Imagination (MIGHT)
↪︎Questions about hypotheticals
↪︎Encourages innovative thinking

The real power? 

Each level combines with 6 question types:
WHAT, WHERE/WHEN, WHICH, WHO, WHY, HOW

That's 36 different ways to push thinking deeper. Wow.

It's a powerful tool and new angle to inquiry in the classroom. 

Why? Because now students have a framework to organize their thoughts.

Start small. Pick one level.
Test different question types.
See what works for your students.

Transform Your Classroom with Engaging Questions

Most people struggle to remember a 10-digit phone number.

Memory champions can recall the exact order of 52 cards in a deck

After looking at them for just 20 seconds.

All by using three simple techniques.

Your brain needs a systematic approach to memory.

Most people struggle because they:

→ Try random memory tricks
→  Read without retention
→ Don't review regularly
→ Cram information
→ Skip active recall

But memory champions do 3 things:

1. Use information immediately

↳Break the "I'll remember it later" habit
↳Act on new knowledge right away
↳Practice what you learn instantly
↳Make connections immediately

2. Break big into small

↳Transform 7602345719 into 760/234/571
↳Split complex ideas into chunks
↳Build small knowledge blocks
↳Create mental checkpoints

3. Review strategically

↳Teach others what you learn
↳Write down key insights
↳Test yourself frequently
↳Recall before sleeping

The human brain holds more info than computers.

But it needs a system to store it properly.

Start small:

→ Meet someone new? Say their name 3x
→ Learn something? Explain it to yourself
→ Read an article? Summarize key points

Mastering Memory: Three Techniques to Boost Your Recall

20 years ago, I struggled to articulate my research.

Sleepless nights and relentless revisions were my best teachers.

Here are 9 writing mistakes I made (and how I'd fix them today):

Here's what you'll learn by reading this:

1.  Dodging causation errors
2.  Keeping sentences tidy
3.  Smart conjunction choices
4.  Nailing the specifics
5.  Right grammar
6.  Picking terminology
7.  Trimming data fat
8.  Clarifying goals
9.  Sticking to one style

Let's go ↓

1.  Implying Causation

Don't suggest causation without clear evidence.

❌ "The treatment caused the observed decrease in symptoms."
✅ "The treatment coincided with a decrease in symptoms, warranting further investigation for causality."

Indicate potential relationships.

2.  Overcomplex Sentences

Don't complicate sentences unnecessarily

❌ "In an investigation that was extensive and involved numerous complex variables, the outcomes were not as definitive as anticipated."
✅ "The investigation yielded inconclusive outcomes."

Strive for clarity.

3.  Conjunction Misuse

Don't use conjunctions ineffectively.

❌ "The drug was found to be highly effective, and there were side effects noted."
✅ "Although the drug was highly effective, notable side effects were observed."

Clearly contrast ideas for better understanding.

4.  Vagueness in Descriptions

Don't be vague in describing research contexts.

❌ "Several studies have addressed these issues in recent years."
✅ "Recent studies, such as Lee et al. (2022), have specifically addressed these issues."

Provide specific references for clarity.

5.  Grammatical Disruptions

Don't disrupt the text with grammatical errors.

❌ "Research indicates that, students benefit from faculty mentorship."
✅ "Research indicates that students benefit from faculty mentorship."

Use correct punctuation and grammar for smooth reading.

6.  General Terminology

Don't use general terms when specific ones are required.

❌ "The reaction was fast, and the substance changed."
✅ "The reaction proceeded rapidly, resulting in a substantive chemical change of X."

Use precise terminology to convey exact meaning.

7.  Excessive Detail in Data

Don't overwhelm with excessive data details.

❌ "Table 3 includes exhaustive details of the 120 measured variables from the experiment."
✅ "Table 3 selectively summarizes the experiment's key dependent variables."

Present only your result data.

8.  Ambiguous Objectives

Don't write ambiguous aims.

❌ "This study will explore the relationship between several relevant factors."
✅ "This study will explore the relationship between sleep quality and memory retention in adults over 50."

Clear and precise research goals.

9.  Inconsistent Formatting

Don't mix formatting styles.

❌ "As argued by Smith (2019), the results are inconclusive [12]."
✅ "Throughout the document, in-text citations are formatted consistently in one style, for example, (Smith, 2019)."

Maintain a consistent style.

Writing Mistakes and Fixes: 9 Lessons Learned

One of my X threads went slightly viral some weeks ago.

I hated it.
Academics bashed it.
I meant well but failed miserably.

Here is my story and what I learned

(avoid my pain if this happens to you) ↓

What happened?

I came off a month of daily thread writing in June.

I was tired.
I was weary.
I was drained.

X thread writing is a lot of work.

So, I repurposed one of my older threads that did well before.
But with a different sensational hook.
Result: 624.1K vs. 33.2K views.

Why would I do that?

I've experimented with copywriting on X for >1 year.

To train my writing skills.
To build an audience.
To help people.

Everything I write is in good faith to help academics.
Your success is my success.
Ok, enough chitchat.

Here are my lessons:

1. Ensure you have banger content to go with a banger hook

The hook promised a masterpiece.

My strategies delivered thesaurus-powered rephrasing.

I get that many people thought that this underdelivered.

(Sorry, I was exhausted. 🤷)

Check the content when rewriting the hook.

2. Haters love to hate

If I read something that doesn't do it for me.
I would just move on.
Some folks don't.

Peer review instills natural criticism in academics.

My day has 24 hours.
I have many great things to do.

Why spend even a fraction of that hating on someone online?

3. A whale can flip everyone's opinions

The thread did ok for my audience.
Then, after about a day, one giant account flipped it.
They quote-reposted with negative messaging opening the floodgates.

Disaster.
Personal attacks followed.
48 hours later, I was still blocking people

4. Posts with more views are more likely to offend someone

Even if you have the best of content intentions.
The larger an audience sees a post,
The more people will complain.

Be stoic and prepared.
You can't make everyone happy.
But you're bound to make someone very unhappy.

Before I finish this, you wonder:

Who is this guy?
How can he help me?
What else can I learn here?

Don't pay me yet.
Don't ask for advice yet.
Don't just purchase my writing course.

Join 2,000+ people in my FREE writing newsletter:
https://view.flodesk.com/pages/6438556c47fd69214ac03f1d

Then → you decide.

5. People put meaning into everything you leave out

I barely provided enough context.
Few suggestions were workable for all papers.
So, what happened is: people started interpreting my words.

To overemphasize results.
To editorialize.
To lie.

That. Is. Bad.
I never said this.

6. Never underestimate people's desire to judge others

There is an art to telling someone they are wrong.
Yes, even on the Internet.
To see change.

Sarcasm isn't it.
Mockery isn't it.
Cynicism isn't it.

Yet, I got plenty of that.

Stop.
Store your darts.
Change their hearts.

7. Marketing is necessary, but nobody likes it

Trust me. I know.
When I started promoting:
I felt weird. I felt out of place. I felt loud.

If your audience is mainly academic (like mine).
You have to be cautious about how you pitch.
I'm still not perfect.

But I'm learning.

TL;DR 7 viral life lessons on X

1. Have banger content for the hook
2. Haters love to hate
3. A whale can flip everyone
4. Posts with more views are more likely to offend
5. People put meaning into void
6. Never underestimate judging desire
7. Marketing is necessary, not liked


Lessons Learned from a Viral Thread

How to pick a journal using just your abstract with @thetrinkaai

(without sifting through journal databases manually) ↓

1. Before you start

You will need:
• The abstract of your manuscript

For my matching evaluation I used:
• An understanding of relevant journals in my field
(Use the video to find them with Google Scholar)

2. Copy and paste your abstract

Navigate to cloud. trinka. ai/journal-finder

Copy the abstract from your manuscript.

Paste it into the abstract field on the website.

Hit 'Search Journal' and wait for the green confirmation on the top right.

While I have you here:

You should read my writing newsletter and take my online course about academic writing, where you learn everything you need to know to write an academic paper.

Sign up for my completely free newsletter here now:
https://view.flodesk.com/pages/6438556c47fd69214ac03f1d

3. Let the matching AI do its magic

Trinka will now attempt to match the text of your abstract with existing abstracts in journals in their database.

Based on this matching algorithm, it will present a ranked list of journals.

4. After a few minutes, check your results (View Results)

On the results page, it will present:
• Ranked list of matched journals
• Publication trend
• Impact factors
• CiteScore
• Language
• Location
• H-index

Use these to make an informed decision of publication.

For my evaluation, I compared with the journals from Step 1

This paper was outside of my regular publication venues (naturally the journals I would usually publish don't have much on ChatGPT yet).

This meant not too many matches with Step 1.

My other abstracts matched better.

That's it.

An easy way to find potential publication venues with your abstract using AI.

This is part 6 out of 30 threads I will do in June.