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/
5 steps to developing a point of view:
1. Map the terrain
2. Build bridges to existing work
3. Shift your lens
4. Weigh the evidence
5. Commit to your stance
Do this, and panels will notice.
1. Map the terrain
2. Build bridges to existing work
3. Shift your lens
4. Weigh the evidence
5. Commit to your stance
Do this, and panels will notice.
January 16, 2026 at 6:59 PM
5 steps to developing a point of view:
1. Map the terrain
2. Build bridges to existing work
3. Shift your lens
4. Weigh the evidence
5. Commit to your stance
Do this, and panels will notice.
1. Map the terrain
2. Build bridges to existing work
3. Shift your lens
4. Weigh the evidence
5. Commit to your stance
Do this, and panels will notice.
Three months of reading. Zero clarity.
Nobody teaches PhD reading. It's a skill.
Here's why reading in your PhD breaks people:
Nobody teaches PhD reading. It's a skill.
Here's why reading in your PhD breaks people:
January 7, 2026 at 4:02 PM
Three months of reading. Zero clarity.
Nobody teaches PhD reading. It's a skill.
Here's why reading in your PhD breaks people:
Nobody teaches PhD reading. It's a skill.
Here's why reading in your PhD breaks people:
Only 70% of PhD students ever finish.
I've supervised dozens to completion.
After 20+ years, here's the 5-step system that actually works:
I've supervised dozens to completion.
After 20+ years, here's the 5-step system that actually works:
January 7, 2026 at 7:01 AM
Only 70% of PhD students ever finish.
I've supervised dozens to completion.
After 20+ years, here's the 5-step system that actually works:
I've supervised dozens to completion.
After 20+ years, here's the 5-step system that actually works:
Bad reviews kill good papers.
After reviewing 200+ manuscripts, I've seen this pattern:
Reviewers who doubt a hypothesis
→ write brutal rejections.
Reviewers who doubt a hypothesis well
→ write rejections that make papers better.
The difference?
How the concern gets expressed.
After reviewing 200+ manuscripts, I've seen this pattern:
Reviewers who doubt a hypothesis
→ write brutal rejections.
Reviewers who doubt a hypothesis well
→ write rejections that make papers better.
The difference?
How the concern gets expressed.
January 6, 2026 at 6:56 PM
Bad reviews kill good papers.
After reviewing 200+ manuscripts, I've seen this pattern:
Reviewers who doubt a hypothesis
→ write brutal rejections.
Reviewers who doubt a hypothesis well
→ write rejections that make papers better.
The difference?
How the concern gets expressed.
After reviewing 200+ manuscripts, I've seen this pattern:
Reviewers who doubt a hypothesis
→ write brutal rejections.
Reviewers who doubt a hypothesis well
→ write rejections that make papers better.
The difference?
How the concern gets expressed.
The one email that will destroy your career:
That email inviting you to submit your paper?
Promising publication in 3 weeks?
Praising your excellent work?
It's all a trap.
That email inviting you to submit your paper?
Promising publication in 3 weeks?
Praising your excellent work?
It's all a trap.
January 6, 2026 at 1:44 PM
The one email that will destroy your career:
That email inviting you to submit your paper?
Promising publication in 3 weeks?
Praising your excellent work?
It's all a trap.
That email inviting you to submit your paper?
Promising publication in 3 weeks?
Praising your excellent work?
It's all a trap.
Your abstract kills your paper before anyone reads page 2.
I've desk-rejected 200+ papers where the abstract promised nothing concrete.
Here's what separates accepted abstracts from rejected ones:
I've desk-rejected 200+ papers where the abstract promised nothing concrete.
Here's what separates accepted abstracts from rejected ones:
January 6, 2026 at 1:00 AM
Your abstract kills your paper before anyone reads page 2.
I've desk-rejected 200+ papers where the abstract promised nothing concrete.
Here's what separates accepted abstracts from rejected ones:
I've desk-rejected 200+ papers where the abstract promised nothing concrete.
Here's what separates accepted abstracts from rejected ones:
Want to save lives as a dean?
Stop scheduling us to teach before 10 AM.
The mortality rate among student relatives drops to zero.
This is the way to save hundreds of grandparents.
It's not much, but it's the honest work. 😉
Stop scheduling us to teach before 10 AM.
The mortality rate among student relatives drops to zero.
This is the way to save hundreds of grandparents.
It's not much, but it's the honest work. 😉
January 5, 2026 at 1:02 AM
Want to save lives as a dean?
Stop scheduling us to teach before 10 AM.
The mortality rate among student relatives drops to zero.
This is the way to save hundreds of grandparents.
It's not much, but it's the honest work. 😉
Stop scheduling us to teach before 10 AM.
The mortality rate among student relatives drops to zero.
This is the way to save hundreds of grandparents.
It's not much, but it's the honest work. 😉
Medical textbooks got it all wrong.
There's only one type of pain that really hurts.
It's called being a PI.
Most PIs burn out fixing imaginary problems.
They carry their students' imposter syndrome like it's their own.
They wait for 8-hour writing blocks that never come.
There's only one type of pain that really hurts.
It's called being a PI.
Most PIs burn out fixing imaginary problems.
They carry their students' imposter syndrome like it's their own.
They wait for 8-hour writing blocks that never come.
January 4, 2026 at 1:12 PM
Medical textbooks got it all wrong.
There's only one type of pain that really hurts.
It's called being a PI.
Most PIs burn out fixing imaginary problems.
They carry their students' imposter syndrome like it's their own.
They wait for 8-hour writing blocks that never come.
There's only one type of pain that really hurts.
It's called being a PI.
Most PIs burn out fixing imaginary problems.
They carry their students' imposter syndrome like it's their own.
They wait for 8-hour writing blocks that never come.
Most scientists write introductions that reviewers never finish reading.
They're too long, unfocused, and packed with names nobody cares about.
Faber reported the three mistakes that destroy submissions in this 2012 JWFO piece. And it's still relevant today.
Here's how to fix them:
They're too long, unfocused, and packed with names nobody cares about.
Faber reported the three mistakes that destroy submissions in this 2012 JWFO piece. And it's still relevant today.
Here's how to fix them:
January 2, 2026 at 1:18 PM
Most scientists write introductions that reviewers never finish reading.
They're too long, unfocused, and packed with names nobody cares about.
Faber reported the three mistakes that destroy submissions in this 2012 JWFO piece. And it's still relevant today.
Here's how to fix them:
They're too long, unfocused, and packed with names nobody cares about.
Faber reported the three mistakes that destroy submissions in this 2012 JWFO piece. And it's still relevant today.
Here's how to fix them:
I've supervised 20+ PhDs to completion.
The biggest predictor of success isn’t grit.
It’s knowing when to quit.
Japanese proverb:
“If you board the wrong train, get off at the next station.”
The longer you stay, the more expensive it gets.
Research is the same:
The biggest predictor of success isn’t grit.
It’s knowing when to quit.
Japanese proverb:
“If you board the wrong train, get off at the next station.”
The longer you stay, the more expensive it gets.
Research is the same:
December 30, 2025 at 12:16 PM
I've supervised 20+ PhDs to completion.
The biggest predictor of success isn’t grit.
It’s knowing when to quit.
Japanese proverb:
“If you board the wrong train, get off at the next station.”
The longer you stay, the more expensive it gets.
Research is the same:
The biggest predictor of success isn’t grit.
It’s knowing when to quit.
Japanese proverb:
“If you board the wrong train, get off at the next station.”
The longer you stay, the more expensive it gets.
Research is the same:
Your lab’s reputation isn’t built on your best paper.
It’s built on whether great people want to work with you again.
I've run a research lab for 15+ years.
The best PIs protect their teams fiercely.
That's how you get results that last.
It’s built on whether great people want to work with you again.
I've run a research lab for 15+ years.
The best PIs protect their teams fiercely.
That's how you get results that last.
December 29, 2025 at 9:56 PM
Your lab’s reputation isn’t built on your best paper.
It’s built on whether great people want to work with you again.
I've run a research lab for 15+ years.
The best PIs protect their teams fiercely.
That's how you get results that last.
It’s built on whether great people want to work with you again.
I've run a research lab for 15+ years.
The best PIs protect their teams fiercely.
That's how you get results that last.
I’ve reviewed 300+ papers. Here’s the pattern I keep seeing:
Smart researchers confuse critique with criticism.
Critique finds strengths AND weaknesses.
It builds understanding.
Criticism just tears everything down.
Smart researchers confuse critique with criticism.
Critique finds strengths AND weaknesses.
It builds understanding.
Criticism just tears everything down.
December 29, 2025 at 6:01 AM
I’ve reviewed 300+ papers. Here’s the pattern I keep seeing:
Smart researchers confuse critique with criticism.
Critique finds strengths AND weaknesses.
It builds understanding.
Criticism just tears everything down.
Smart researchers confuse critique with criticism.
Critique finds strengths AND weaknesses.
It builds understanding.
Criticism just tears everything down.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Most academics have 24 unsolved problems in 1 draft.
You know something is wrong. But you can't name it.
Is it the gap statement? The confounds you missed? The fact that your hook sounds like a tax form?
All of the above. Plus 21 more problems you haven't spotted yet.
You know something is wrong. But you can't name it.
Is it the gap statement? The confounds you missed? The fact that your hook sounds like a tax form?
All of the above. Plus 21 more problems you haven't spotted yet.
November 30, 2025 at 6:57 PM
Most academics have 24 unsolved problems in 1 draft.
You know something is wrong. But you can't name it.
Is it the gap statement? The confounds you missed? The fact that your hook sounds like a tax form?
All of the above. Plus 21 more problems you haven't spotted yet.
You know something is wrong. But you can't name it.
Is it the gap statement? The confounds you missed? The fact that your hook sounds like a tax form?
All of the above. Plus 21 more problems you haven't spotted yet.
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: