I help PhDs, Postdocs & Lecturers secure tenure-track jobs and navigate academia | Insider knowledge tips on how to succeed | Academic Career Mentor | Professor & Research Director

I was a lost PhD student. Confused. Overwhelmed. Ready to quit.

Sitting in my tiny office at 2 AM, drowning in research papers, I made a promise...

"If I somehow make it through this, I'll help others navigate what I'm struggling with."

Today, I'm a Professor at a top UK university.

But here's what matters more...

I've kept that promise by helping researchers complete their PhDs and navigate academia.

------

The brutal truth about doing a PhD/DBA whilst working

I hear the same struggles from the 26% of PhD & DBA students who are working professionals:

→ I can't keep up -the mental capacity is exhausted
→ I'm juggling three full-time jobs with no bandwidth
→ I've been stuck for 3-6 months with no real progress
→ My family thinks my PhD/DBA is a hobby, not a second job
→ I feel isolated - no one understands what I'm going through

Sound familiar? You're not alone. And it's not your fault.

Universities train PhD/DBA researchers for academia, but working professionals need something completely different:

❌ You're investing $25-80K but risk joining the 33% who drop out
❌ Motivation crashes after major life events (births, job changes, pandemic)
❌ Distance learning leaves you isolated, struggling to navigate systems alone
❌ You don't have 40 hours/week; you have 10 hours scattered across nights & weekends  
❌ Your supervisor gives great academic feedback but doesn't understand work-life-PhD balance

That's why I created specialised services for serious researchers.

My transformation:

→ 30+ PhDs/DBAs mentored to success
→ 130+ publications across top journals
→ £9 million in research funding secured
→ From PhD uncertainty to Professor by 40
→ 230K researchers follow my guidance daily
→ Research reached 30+ million people globally

FREE RESOURCES:

✅ Weekly newsletter (10K+ subscribers) www.phdtoprof.com/newsletter
✅ Free academic resources www.phdtoprof.com/store
✅ AI tools for ethical research productivity

PREMIUM SERVICES:

🎯 Premium PhD/DBA Mentoring - For senior professionals completing their PhD/DBA on time
🎯 PhD/DBA Proposal Development - Support developing and passing proposals
🎯 Expert Thesis Review - Comprehensive dissertation feedback from an experienced PhD examiner
🎯 AI in Research Masterclasses - Responsible and ethical AI use for researchers
🎯 University & Institution Training - Workshops on responsible AI in research for academic teams

My mission:

Help you complete your PhD/DBA on time while using AI responsibly in your research.

Academic success doesn't have to be a mystery. You just need the right guide.

Emmanuel Tsekleves

A PhD student showed at my office in tears. Prof Clarke sent me to you. I can't do this anymore. She wasn't failing her PhD. Her PhD was failing her.

Heather was brilliant. Motivated. Passionate about her research.

But her supervisor was failing her.

Not academically. Emotionally.

That conversation changed how I think about mentorship forever.

Here's what I learned:

Most supervisors focus only on research progress.

They ignore the human being behind the work.

Heather's supervisor was technically excellent.

But emotionally absent.

She didn't need a smarter supervisor.

She needed a more present one.

I started meeting with Heather weekly.

I gave her what was missing:

1) Recognition
I celebrated small wins. Not just problems.
"Your literature review structure is improving" mattered as much as technical feedback.

2) Responsibility
I helped her own her research decisions.
She didn't need permission for every choice.

3) Learning
I created space for questions without judgment.
"I don't understand this" became a starting point. Not a failure.

4) Joy
I reminded her research should excite her.
We discussed ideas over coffee. Not just problems in formal meetings.

The transformation was incredible.

Heather went from wanting to quit to finishing 3 months early.

Her confidence returned. Her research quality improved.

She now supervises her own students using these same principles.

The problem was never Heather's ability.

It was inadequate support.

Your PhD supervisor has more impact on your mental health than your therapist.

Choose them wisely.

And if you're a supervisor reading this:

Your job isn't to push students harder.

It's to support them better.

---

Which of these 4 elements did YOU need most during your PhD?

Recognition, Responsibility, Learning, or Joy?

#PhDLife #AcademicMentorship

I help busy researchers complete their PhDs and DBAs on time | Expert Thesis Reviewer | AI in Research Training for Researchers & Universities | Professor | 200,000+ researchers guided

No alternative text description for this image

"I can't afford a PhD." I hear this every week.
And every week, I show them scholarships they never knew existed.
There are 50+ fully-funded PhD programmes worldwide.

Most students only know about 3-4.

They apply to the same obvious ones.

They compete against thousands.

They get rejected.

Then they assume funding doesn't exist.

It does. They just don't know where to look.

I spent 2 months mapping every major PhD scholarship I could find.

50 programmes across 6 continents.

Here's what surprised me:

→ 7 fully-funded options in North and South America alone
→ 19 programmes across Europe (not just UK and Germany)
→ 16 scholarships in Asia most Western applicants ignore
→ Hidden gems in Africa, Middle East, and Oceania

Some cover tuition only.

Many cover tuition + living expenses + travel.

A few even include family allowances.

The difference between funded and unfunded PhDs isn't talent.

It's knowing where to look.

I've mapped all 50 scholarships by region in the visual below.

Save it. Share it with someone who thinks they can't afford a PhD.

Links to each programme in the comments.

---

Which region are you considering for your PhD?

#PhDScholarships #PhDFunding

undefined undefined

Writing Guides

Ready for more? 

Join my exclusive weekly Academic Pathfinder newsletter where I share the exact strategies that have helped hundreds of PhDs finish their PhDs on time, secure competitive tenure-track positions and thrive in academia. 

Get Wednesday's insider tactics delivered straight to your inbox: https://phdtoprof.com/newsletter

Newsletter

Ready for more? 

Join my exclusive weekly PhD Insider newsletter where I share the exact strategies that have helped hundreds of PhDs finish their PhDs on time, use AI responsibly in Research and thrive in academia. 

Get Wednesday's insider tactics delivered straight to your inbox: https://phdtoprof.com/newsletter

Blank

👉 Try for free: https://www.bohrium.com/?utm_source=oversea&utm_term=emmanuel&utm_campaign=kol

PhD 1:1 Autoplug 1 (Form-directed)

Doing your PhD while working full-time is lonely.

Your supervisor is juggling 12+ students. They don't understand how it feels to squeeze research into exhausted evenings and weekends. You get vague feedback like "needs more depth" with no clear direction. Months pass. You start wondering if you'll ever finish.

I've mentored 30+ mid to senior professionals through this exact struggle to successful completion.

20 years at a top 1% university. 25+ PhD examinations. I know where you're losing time.

I take on a small number of dedicated professionals for private premium 1:1 mentorship.

Interested? Start here: https://forms.gle/L3wuDxfAgvDA17SD8

1:1 mentoring Autoplug 2 (Form-directed)

Ready for more? 

Join my exclusive weekly Academic Pathfinder newsletter where I share the exact strategies that have helped hundreds of PhDs finish their PhDs on time, use AI responsibly in Research and thrive in academia. 

Get Wednesday's insider tactics delivered straight to your inbox: https://phdtoprof.com/newsletter

1:1 Mentoring Autoplug 3 (DM-directed)

You're trying to do three jobs at once: career, family, PhD.

Your supervisor has never lived that reality. I have spent 20 years mentoring professionals who have.

Private premium 1:1 mentorship for mid to senior professionals serious about finishing. Limited availability.

DM "MENTORSHIP" with your PhD stage and biggest challenge right now.


1:1 Mentoring Autoplug 4 (DM-directed, shortest)

Feeling behind on your PhD? Supervisor too busy to help? Wondering if you'll ever finish?

I provide private premium mentorship for mid to senior working professionals. 1:1 support. Limited spots.

DM "MENTORSHIP" with your situation.


Proposal development

Writing your upgrade proposal while working full-time is a different kind of hard.

Your supervisor is juggling 12+ students. They don't understand how it feels to squeeze proposal writing into exhausted evenings and weekends.

You get vague feedback like "needs more depth" with no clear direction.

Your upgrade deadline approaches. You start wondering if you'll even pass.

I've mentored 30+ mid to senior professionals through this exact struggle to successful completion.

20 years at a top 1% university. 40+ PhD examinations. I know where you're losing time.

I take on a small number of dedicated professionals for private premium 1:1 mentorship.

Interested? Start here: www.phdtoprof.com

Academic Writing

Writing your PhD while working full-time makes this ten times harder.

Your supervisor gives feedback like "needs better flow" with no clear direction.

You rewrite the same paragraph five times after a 10-hour workday.

You wonder if your English is good enough. If your arguments are strong enough. If you'll ever get published.

Frameworks and free guides help. But they can't give you personalised feedback on your specific writing.

I've mentored 30+ mid to senior professionals through this exact struggle to successful completion.

20 years at a top 1% university. 40+ PhD examinations. 130+ publications.

I know where your writing is losing marks. And I know how to fix it fast.

I take on a small number of dedicated professionals for private premium 1:1 mentorship.

Interested? Start here: https://forms.gle/L3wuDxfAgvDA17SD8

My student cut her literature review from 4 months to 6 weeks.
Same number of papers. Same quality. Half the time.
She didn't work harder. She switched tools.

My PhD student was drowning in 200+ papers.

She spent 6 hours a day just reading and organising.

No time left for actual writing.

I introduced her to 5 tools.

Within a month, she cut her literature review time in half.

Here's what I've learned after testing 42 research tools with my students:

The right tool at the wrong stage is useless.

Reading tools can't help you write.
Writing tools can't analyse your data.
Analysis tools can't make your presentations.

Most researchers pick one tool and force it to do everything.

That's why they stay stuck.

The productive researchers I know have a system:

→ Different tools for reading and understanding papers
→ Different tools for presenting research
→ Different tools for organising literature
→ Different tools for writing and editing
→ Different tools for data analysis

After years of testing, I've mapped the best 42 tools across 6 research phases.

Each one categorised by:
→ What it actually does best
→ Whether it's free or subscription
→ Which research stage it belongs to

Paper Reading. Literature Review. Paper Review. Data Analysis. Paper Writing. Research Presentation.

I've organised everything in the visual below.

Save it. You'll reference it more than you think.

---

Which research phase slows you down most?

#ResearchTools #PhDLife
Consensus Paperpal Bohrium Inkwell Gamma

I nearly failed a PhD student last year, as an examiner.
Not because her research was bad.
Because I couldn't follow her thesis.

67,000 words. Good range of findings. Three years of work.

But the structure was a mess.

Her literature review jumped between 40 different themes.

Her methodology appeared in three different chapters.

Her discussion repeated her findings instead of interpreting them.

I spent 6 hours trying to understand what she'd actually discovered.

That's when I realised something.

Most PhD failures aren't about bad research.

They're about bad structure.

After examining 50+ theses, I've seen the same pattern:
→ Brilliant students who bury their contribution in chapter 6
→ Strong findings hidden behind confusing methodology sections
→ Conclusions that introduce new ideas instead of landing the plane

Your examiner has 4 hours to read 80,000 words.

If they can't follow your story, they can't pass your thesis.

So I created a visual guide to the 7-chapter structure that works every time.

It's in the image below.

Save it. Print it. Refer back to it with every chapter you write.

Because your thesis isn't just proving expertise.

It's telling a story clearly enough that others can build on it.

----

Which chapter is giving you the most trouble right now?

#PhDThesis #AcademicWriting

4 fake citations. 3 hours wasted. 1 very frustrated supervisor.
My PhD student learned the hard way: ChatGPT isn't built for finding papers.

I watched a PhD student spend 3 hours on a literature review.

He used ChatGPT for everything.

Finding papers. Checking citations. Summarising findings.

The result? 4 hallucinated references and a frustrated supervisor.

The problem wasn't AI.

It was using the wrong tool for the job.

After testing 20+ AI tools with my research students, here's what actually works:

ResearchRabbit
Best for:
→ Discovering papers from seed articles
→ Visualising citation networks
→ Finding connected research you'd miss
→ Mapping a new field quickly

Semantic Scholar
Best for:
→ Finding highly cited papers
→ Tracking influential authors
→ Getting AI-generated summaries (TLDR)
→ Building reliable reference lists

Consensus
Best for:
→ Answering research questions with real studies
→ Evidence synthesis across papers
→ Checking what the literature actually says
→ Finding citations that won't disappear

Paperpal
Best for:
→ Academic writing and grammar
→ Journal-specific language suggestions
→ Improving clarity and flow
→ Polishing drafts before submission

The real advantage?

Knowing which tool to open before you start.

ResearchRabbit can't polish your writing.
Paperpal can't find connected citations.
Semantic Scholar can't synthesise evidence.
Consensus can't map an entire field.

Stop switching between 10 tabs hoping for the best.

Start matching the tool to the task.

I've mapped out exactly when to use each one in the visual below.

Save it. Share it with your lab group.

Which AI tool do you rely on most in your research right now?

#AIforResearch #AcademicTools

My first paper got rejected 3 times. Because I kept submitting to the wrong journals.
This how to find the perfect journal for your paper without wasting months on rejections

I'd pick based on prestige. Or what my supervisor suggested years ago. Or whatever came up first in a Google search.

Each rejection cost me 3-4 months.

By the time I figured out the pattern, I'd lost over a year.

That's when a colleague showed me journal matching tools.

I wish someone had shown me these on day one of my PhD.

There are 12 free tools that analyze your abstract and match it to journals where your research actually fits.

Major publishers like Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, and Taylor & Francis all have them.

So do open access platforms like PLOS and MDPI.

And independent tools like JournalGuide and Scimago that let you compare across publishers.

The difference?

Instead of guessing and waiting months for rejection, you get data-driven matches in minutes.

I've listed all 12 tools in the visual below with links found in the comment too.

Use 2-3 of them to cross-reference results before submitting.

Your research deserves the right audience.

These tools help you find it.

---

What's your biggest frustration with journal selection?

#AcademicPublishing #PhDLife

I almost quit my PhD in year 2. The isolation was crushing. 
Then I discovered academic podcasts. Suddenly, I had mentors in my earbuds.

People who understood the imposter syndrome.

The rejection letters.

The 3am writing sessions.

I wasn't alone anymore.

Although there were not back then as many podcasts as they are now.

That's why, I now curate them for my students.

So they never feel as alone as I did.

Here are 9 podcasts that have helped hundreds of my mentees survive (and thrive) in academia.

I've organised them by career stage:

For PhD Students:
→ The PhD Life Raft – practical survival strategies 
by Emma Brodzinski
→ PhD Talk – real solutions for everyday PhD problems
by Eva Lantsoght
→ Better Biologist – research skills and career development
by Kenan Kraković
→ The PhD Life Coach – support with PhD journey
Vikki Wright

For Early Career Researchers:
→ The Struggling Scientists Podcast – proof you're not alone
by Jayron Habibe, PhD and Suzanne Van Wouw
→ Beyond the Thesis With Papa PhD – career planning that works
David Mendes da Silva, PhD
→ Changing Academic Life – navigating academia's challenges
by Geraldine Fitzpatrick

For Academia to Industry Transition:
→ PostPhDirections – insider tips from hiring managers
Elena Hoffer, PhD  
→ PhD Career Stories – real stories of success and failure
by Tina Persson - Adaptability Intelligence, AQ


Turn your commute into a masterclass.

Your coffee break into a mentoring session.

Your workout into career development.

I've put all 9 with descriptions in the visual below.

Save it for when you need it.

---

Which podcast got YOU through your PhD journey?

#PhDLife #AcademicPodcasts

Helping Overwhelmed Doctoral Researchers| Specializing in Supporting Creatives with ADHD| Crafting Personalized Solutions for PhD Success and Work-life Balance| 1-to-1 coaching| Group Programmes| Institutional Packages

Vice Dean for Research at Universidad San Francisco de Quito & Associate Professor at Delft University of Technology

I help STEM students find and land their dream lab positions 🧬 Book an intro session below to see how we can work together.

Professional life coach at ThePhDLifeCoach.com

I share advice to help make your academic journey less of a struggle | Co-founder The Struggling Scientists | Communications Officer at Westerdijk Institute

Co-Founder The Struggling Scientists | Academic Development Coordinator |

Scientific & Medical Communications | Knowledge Mobilization & Research Impact | PhD | Health & Public Engagement | EN / FR / PT

Developing people and culture as a consultant, facilitator, trainer, speaker, podcaster, coach. Univ Professor i.R., TU Wien.

Help PhDs to kick-start careers outside of academia | CEO @Alma.me | Complementing universities services for PhDs & Postdocs to secure jobs outside academia | Speaker I Podcast Host @PostPhDirections

Executive, Leadership & Career Coach | Adaptability Intelligence | AQ | Innovation | Supporting people & teams and organisations in a fast-changing world driven by AI & technology

How to email potential PhD supervisors. The 6-step email system

Priya had a strong research proposal and excellent grades.

But her emails were long, generic, and focused entirely on herself.

Professors deleted them without reading past the first line.

That's when I taught her my 6-step email system.

Her next 10 emails got 8 responses.

Here's what changed everything:

Professors get 25+ emails weekly from students wanting PhD supervision.

Your email has 15 seconds to stand out.

Most applicants write emails like personal statements.

Formal. Lengthy. Self-focused.

That's why they get ignored.

Here's the system that transformed Priya's response rate:

1. Lead with relevance
Start with your strongest connection to their work. Not your life story.

2. Get to the point fast
Say what you want in the first two sentences. They're reading between meetings.

3. Show you know their work
Mention a specific paper or project. Prove you're not mass-emailing.

4. Explain your value
Don't just ask for supervision. Show what you bring to their research group.

5. Suggest a clear next step
Not "I hope to hear from you." Try "Would you have 15 minutes to discuss this?"

6. Make it scannable
Short paragraphs. White space. They might read it on their phone.

The results for Priya:

→ Response rate jumped from 4% to 80%
→ 4 supervisors agreed to discuss her proposal
→ 2 offered to support her scholarship application
→ She secured full funding at her first-choice university

The difference wasn't her qualifications.

It was making her emails impossible to ignore.

Most applicants write emails about what they want.

Smart applicants write emails about what they can contribute.

I've included a template with all 6 elements in the visual below.

Save it before your next outreach.

---

What's your biggest challenge when contacting potential supervisors?

#PhDLife #PhDScholarship

I've examined 47 PhD theses.
These phrases make me worry within 5 pages.
Here's how to fix them:

Every examiner has a mental checklist.

We don't talk about it. But we all have one.

And certain phrases trigger alarm bells before we've finished your introduction.

Here are 9 red flags that make examiners pause:

❌ "It is widely known that..."
What examiners think: Where's the citation? Are you avoiding the literature?
✅ Better: "Research has consistently shown (Author, Year)..."

❌ "This proves that..."
What examiners think: Statistical overreach. Do you understand your methods?
✅ Better: "These findings suggest..."

❌ "Obviously..." or "Clearly..."
What examiners think: If it's obvious, why are you doing a PhD on it?
✅ Better: "The evidence indicates..."

❌ "A lot of research shows..."
What examiners think: Vague. Which research? How much is "a lot"?
✅ Better: "Multiple studies (Author, Year; Author, Year) demonstrate..."

❌ "In conclusion, more research is needed."
What examiners think: Everyone writes this. What did YOU discover?
✅ Better: "These findings open specific questions about [concrete direction]..."

❌ "The researcher believes..."
What examiners think: This isn't a blog post. Where's your evidence?
✅ Better: "Based on these results, it appears..."

❌ "Perfect" / "Prove" / "Never" / "Always"
What examiners think: Absolutist language signals inexperience.
✅ Better: Use hedging words: may, could, suggests, indicates

❌ "Very unique" / "Extremely important"
What examiners think: These intensifiers weaken your argument, not strengthen it.
✅ Better: Let your evidence speak. Remove the adverb entirely.

The pattern?

Weak language signals weak thinking.

Even when your research is solid.

These phrases create doubt before you've had a chance to prove yourself.

Tools like Paperpal catch these patterns before submission.

→ Language Editing flags weak phrases automatically
→ Academic Paraphraser transforms vague writing into precise alternatives
→ Consistency Checks spot patterns that signal rushed work

I wish I'd had this when writing my own thesis.

Save this for your next chapter draft.

—

Repost and comment 'GUIDE' to receive my FREE "PhD Examiner Red Flag Phrase Guide: 50 Phrases to Avoid, And What to Write Instead" within 72 hours.

What phrase have you been told to remove from your thesis?

#PhDChat #AcademicWriting

Paperpal

How to read research papers 10x faster without losing your mind. I spent years doing it wrong. Then I found a method that cut my reading time by 70%.


Reading every word. Start to finish. Taking 3 hours per paper. Forgetting page 1 by page 15.

Sound familiar?

Then I found a method that cut my reading time by 70%.

It's called the Three-Pass Approach. Here's exactly how it works:

Pass 1: The Bird's Eye View (5-10 minutes)

Read only these parts:
→ Title, abstract, introduction
→ Section headings
→ Conclusions
→ Scan the references

That's it. You now know if this paper is worth your time.

Pass 2: The Content Grab (up to 45 minutes)

Now read with more care.
→ Study the figures and graphs carefully
→ Mark references you need to read later
→ Jot down key points in the margins

You can now explain this paper to someone else.

Pass 3: The Deep Dive (1-3 hours)

This is for papers you MUST understand fully.
→ Walk through the methodology step by step
→ Challenge every assumption
→ Identify hidden weaknesses

After this? You own that paper.

Here's the truth:

Most reviewers and readers only do ONE pass.

If they can't understand your paper in 5 minutes, they'll move on.

That's why your abstracts matter. Your headings matter. Your structure matters.

The three-pass method saves time. It builds understanding. And it makes you a better writer too.

I've used this approach for years. For conference reviews. For literature surveys. For background research.

It works.

Source: Keshav, S. (2007). "How to Read a Paper." ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, Volume 37, Number 3.

---

How many papers do you read per week? And do you have a system?

#PhDLife #AcademicTwitter

2 years for original research.
8 weeks for a systematic review.
One nearly broke me. The other launched my career.

Same journal. Same citation impact. Here's how to do it:

After my first 3 papers got rejected, a mentor asked me:

"Why are you making publishing so hard?"

I didn't understand the question.

Then she showed me her CV.

6 systematic reviews. All highly cited. Published in top journals.

She explained:
→ Systematic reviews synthesise what exists
→ They don't require new data collection
→ Journals love them because readers actually use them
→ And they get cited MORE than original research

My first systematic review took 4 months.

Accepted in 8 weeks. Now has 100+ citations.

That paper got me invited to editorial boards.

But here's what most people get wrong:

The methodology section makes or breaks your review.

Weak methodology = desk rejection.

After publishing multiple systematic reviews, I developed a 7-step framework:

1. Choose your Methodological Framework
PRISMA, Cochrane, or another established guideline.

2. Document your Search Strategy
List every database and your exact search terms.

3. Define your Inclusion Criteria
Specify populations, interventions, outcomes, and study designs.

4. Explain your Data Collection
Describe who extracted data and how you resolved disagreements.

5. Describe your Study Characteristics
Provide context on study sizes, locations, and methods.

6. Report your Quality Assessment
Name the bias tools used and how quality shaped your conclusions.

7. Detail your Data Extraction
Show your process so others can replicate it.

Miss any of these and reviewers will send it back.

I've broken down each step with real examples from published papers in the visual below.

Save it. Check your methodology against it before you submit.

---

Have you tried a systematic review yet? What's holding you back?

#SystematicReview #AcademicWriting

How do you turn 100+ papers into one coherent argument? I had no idea. 
Then I developed a 7-step system that changed everything.

"This is an incoherent mess."

My supervisor's words. About my literature review.

I had read 100+ papers over 6 months.

Notes scattered across 15 different documents.

But I couldn't write a single coherent paragraph.

I was drowning in information without direction.

That's when I developed my 7-step system.

It turned my chaos into my most cited publication.

Here's the framework:

1. Define Your Research Focus
Start with one clear question. Know exactly what's missing.

2. Search Systematically
Right databases. Clear search terms. Document everything.

3. Evaluate What You Find
Rate quality. Note strengths and weaknesses. Spot patterns.

4. Connect the Ideas
Group by theme. Map how concepts link. See the bigger picture.

5. Create Your Framework
Link theory to evidence. Build a logical argument flow.

6. Write and Refine
Draft from your outline. Get feedback. Polish ruthlessly.

7. Share Your Work
Present at conferences. Submit to journals. Build connections.

The results:

→ My literature review became a standalone publication
→ 47 citations in the first year
→ Two international collaborations started from it
→ It became the foundation for my entire PhD

The difference wasn't reading more papers.

It was having a system to organise what I read.

Most PhD students collect information without a plan.

Smart students build knowledge systematically.

I've broken down each step in detail in the visual below.

Save it before your next literature review.

---

Which step feels most challenging for you right now?

#LiteratureReview #PhDLife

3 patterns of misuse of AI in research I see every week that terrify me:

1. Researchers uploading confidential interview transcripts to ChatGPT

2. PhD students submitting AI-generated text without checking citations

3. Supervisors who have no idea what tools their students are using

Each of these can end a career.

I've seen researchers make the same mistakes over and over:

→ Uploading participant transcripts to ChatGPT (career-ending privacy violation)
→ Trusting AI-generated citations without checking (instant credibility destruction)
→ Feeding reviewer comments into AI (confidentiality breach)
→ Submitting to journals that ban AI entirely (automatic rejection)

The problem isn't AI itself. 

It isn't that researchers are using AI.

It's that nobody gave them the rulebook.
It's that nobody taught researchers the rules.

Universities don't cover this. Supervisors don't know it. Ethics boards are still catching up.

So after advising 500+ researchers, I created 13 golden rules for using AI ethically in research.

I've put them all in the visual below.

Screenshot it. Print it. Share it with your lab group.

Because what's acceptable today might be a retraction tomorrow.

---

Which of these 3 patterns have you witnessed?

#AIinResearch #AcademicIntegrity

Wrong PhD supervisor = dropped out within 2 years.
Right supervisor = completed while working full-time.
Here's how to choose well...

I've seen this pattern hundreds of times.

The supervisor you choose matters more than the university name on your certificate.

Here's what most working professionals get wrong:

They chase the famous professor.

Big name. Long publication list. Impressive CV.

But famous professors are busy. They travel. They have 20 other students.

They don't have time for someone who can only meet on Tuesday evenings.

Here's how to find the right supervisor instead:

1. Ask about flexibility first
Not publications. Not h-index. Flexibility.
"How do you work with students who have full-time jobs?"
If they hesitate, that's your answer.

2. Check their response time
Send them an email. See how long they take to reply.
If it takes 3 weeks now, imagine waiting 3 weeks for feedback on your draft.

3. Ask their current students
Not the ones who finished. The ones still struggling through.
"Does your supervisor understand when work gets busy?"
Their answer tells you everything.

4. Look for kindness over celebrity
A supportive generalist will get you to completion.
An unsupportive expert will get you to withdrawal.

5. Trust your gut in the first meeting
Do they ask about your life? Your job? Your constraints?
Or do they only talk about their research agenda?
You need a partner, not a boss.

Red flags to watch for:
"I expect you in the lab every day"
"Part-time PhDs never finish"
"I don't do video calls"

These aren't bad supervisors. They're just wrong for you.

The right supervisor exists.

You just need to ask the right questions before you commit.

What's the ONE question you'd ask a potential supervisor?

#PhDLife #AcademicTwitter

I used to spend 60+ hours searching for research gaps. Now I do it in under 60 minutes. Here's the free AI tool that changed everything.

Last year, every new project started the same way:

47 open tabs.
12 half-read papers.
Zero clarity.

Then a colleague showed me AllSci Corp.

It maps 20+ million research papers into hypotheses and evidence.

You don't just see what exists.

You see what's missing.

Last month I typed in my research topic.

Within 15 minutes I spotted a connection between two fields nobody had explored.

That gap became my latest paper.

The tool does 4 things brilliantly:
→ Organises results by hypothesis, not just keywords
→ Shows supporting evidence for each claim
→ Identifies the leading authors you should be reading
→ Visualises the entire research landscape so you spot gaps others miss

Here's how to use it in 4 simple steps:

Step 1: Enter your research topic
Type your question into the search bar and select "Detailed Search" for AI-powered discovery.

Step 2: Review hypothesis-backed results
Get results organised by hypothesis and evidence. Skip the noise. Go straight to verified claims.

Step 3: Explore hypotheses and key authors
Dive deeper into specific hypotheses. Identify the leading researchers you should be reading.

Step 4: Visualise the research landscape
Explore trends, journals, and connections. Use knowledge graphs to spot gaps nobody else sees.

I've mapped out each step with screenshots in the visual below.

The best part? It's completely free for researchers.

---

What research gap are you currently struggling to define?

#ResearchTools #PhDLife

AllSci Corp.

Your keyword search is lying to you.
It's hiding 40% of your literature.
Here's how to catch it

I've examined 47 PhD theses.
The same problem appears in almost every one.
Gaps in the literature review the student didn't know existed.

Not because they were lazy. Because keyword search failed them.

These questions consistently reveal gaps:

"Why haven't you cited the [adjacent field] literature?"
"This has been studied extensively in [discipline]. Why no mention?"
"How do you know you haven't missed something important?"

Most students can't answer the last one.

Why? The concept stays the same. The words change.

"Primary care" in the UK. "Family medicine" in the US. "General practice" in Europe.

Same system. Different terminology. Invisible walls.

My estimate: 40% of relevant papers get missed because of terminology barriers.

That's not sloppy research. That's a structural problem.

Here's the 5-step fix I share with every researcher I mentor:

1. Question your keywords: What would another field call this?
2. Search in sentences: Let semantic search find the right terms.
3. Follow citations: One good paper reveals terminology you didn't know.
4. Get outside eyes: A colleague in a related field spots blind spots.
5. Test before submitting: Different phrasings, different results = gaps.

Tools like Consensus use semantic search to understand concepts, not just keywords.

Same research question. 4x the relevant literature.

But tools alone aren't enough. You need to use them responsibly.

I've created a free guide: "How to Find the Papers You Don't Know You're Missing Using AI Responsibly"

Repost and comment 'SEARCH' below and I'll send it within 72 hours.

What terminology barriers have you found in your field?

#PhDChat #AcademicWriting

Consensus

You should not have to upload the same research paper six times to six different AI tools. But that is exactly what most PhD students do every week.
Here is the fix.

Every AI tool wants you to start from scratch.

This is ridiculous. But it is fixable.

A colleague came to me last week completely frustrated.

She had uploaded the same 38 papers to three different AI platforms.

108 uploads for documents she already had saved.

When she switched from Claude to ChatGPT for a different task, she lost everything. All the context. All the connections. Gone.

Each platform holds your documents hostage inside its own walls.

Your knowledge becomes platform dependent.
Your workflow becomes fragmented.
Your time disappears into endless re-uploads.

I showed her awRAG.io

Here is what it does:

You import your Zotero (or Endnote or others) library once.
One click.
All your papers indexed.

Then you access them from ANY AI tool.

ChatGPT. Claude. Gemini. Perplexity.

A browser extension connects your entire library to whatever AI you are using.

No more re-uploads.
No more starting over.
No more lost context.

The search understands what you mean.

Type "that qualitative methods paper about healthcare from 2021" and it finds exactly what you need. With relevance scores. With the specific passages.

For your PhD this means:

Literature reviews that pull from everything you ever saved.

Methodology sections backed by papers you forgot you had.

Theoretical frameworks built on your entire collection.

And here is what matters for sensitive research:

Your data stays in the EU.

GDPR compliant.
No AI training on your documents.
SOC 2 Type II certified infrastructure.

Your thesis data is not feeding someone else's model.

I created a step-by-step visual showing how to set this up.

Takes 10 minutes.

The guide is below.

How many times did you re-upload the same paper to different AI tools this week?

#PhDLife #AcademicResearch

awRAG.io

I've examined 43 PhD students.
Only 12 had the training they actually needed.
Here's what nobody tells you about PhD programs:


The rest? Left to figure it out alone.

Here's what nobody tells you about PhD programs:

Universities charge $80K+ in fees.
They teach you theory.
They teach you research methods.
They teach you how to run experiments.

But they don't teach the skills that actually determine your career.

→ How to network strategically
→ How to navigate the hidden job market
→ How to write papers that get published
→ How to manage your supervisor relationship
→ How to position yourself for faculty or industry roles

I learned this the hard way.

My PhD program never mentioned career strategy.

I spent 2 years applying to jobs with no responses.

No one told me 70% of PhDs struggle with the same thing.

No one told me only 8% land faculty positions.

The gap between PhD training and career reality is massive.

So what do successful PhDs learn outside the curriculum?

5 skills top students develop on their own:

1. Strategic publishing (quality over quantity)
2. Building a research identity before graduating
3. Conference networking that leads to opportunities
4. Writing that connects with readers, not just reviewers
5. Managing up with supervisors who are too busy

These aren't taught in any module.

But they separate those who thrive from those who struggle.

I made a promise when I became a professor:

I would teach what I wished someone had taught me.

The system isn't broken by accident.

It's designed for research output, not researcher success.

But you don't have to wait for programs to change.

Start building these skills now.

What skill do you wish your PhD program taught you?

#PhDLife #AcademicCareer

----
Sources:

Hazell, C. M., Niven, J. E., Chapman, L., Roberts, P. E., Cartwright-Hatton, S., Valeix, S., & Berry, C. (2021). Nationwide assessment of the mental health of UK Doctoral Researchers. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8, Article 305. https://lnkd.in/dr6PzSmK

The mental health of PhD researchers demands urgent attention. (2019). Nature, 575(7782), 257-258. https://lnkd.in/du9HcyAF

Larson, R. C., Ghaffarzadegan, N., & Xue, Y. (2014). Too many PhD graduates or too few academic job openings: The basic reproductive number R₀ in academia. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 31(6), 745-750. https://lnkd.in/dyda-SKa

Evans, T. M., Bira, L., Gastelum, J. B., Weiss, L. T., & Vanderford, N. L. (2018). Evidence for a mental health crisis in graduate education. Nature Biotechnology, 36(3), 282-284. https://lnkd.in/dtrJCzsF

A PhD student in our programme almost submitted a paper with 3 fake citations. They looked perfect.
5 AI Hallucination Red Flags & How to Spot Them:

ChatGPT had generated them. 

Author names. Journal titles. Even DOIs.

None of them existed.

Her supervisor caught them the night before submission.

This is why universities are panicking about AI in research.

And why I now run workshops for institutions on responsible AI use.

Here's what every researcher needs to know:

The 5 AI Hallucination Red Flags:

1. Citations you've never seen before
AI loves inventing plausible-sounding references. If you didn't find it yourself, verify it exists.

2. Statistics that seem too perfect
"Studies show 73.4% of researchers..." If it's suspiciously precise, it's probably fabricated.

3. Author names that don't appear on Google Scholar
Real academics have publication trails. Fake ones vanish when you search.

4. Journal names with slight misspellings
"Journal of Applied Neuroscience" vs "Journal of Applied Neurosciences" — one exists, one doesn't.

5. Claims that contradict your domain knowledge
You're the expert. If something feels wrong, it probably is.

The Verification Protocol I Teach in University Workshops:

Step 1: Never use AI citations directly
Step 2: Cross-reference every claim with primary sources
Step 3: Check every DOI link actually resolves to a real paper
Step 4: Document exactly how AI was used in your methods
Step 5: When uncertain, disclose more rather than less

One fake citation can end a career.

Five minutes of verification can save it.

---

What's the most surprising AI error you've caught in your research?

#AIinResearch #AcademicIntegrity

70% of researchers will use AI incorrectly this year.
Not because they're lazy.
Because nobody taught them the right way.

I've spent 15 years in academia. Made Professor by 40. Helped over 10,000 researchers navigate their careers.

And I've never seen a shift this fast.

AI is changing everything about how research gets done. 

The problem? Most researchers are using it to replace their thinking instead of support it.

That's a mistake that will catch up with them.

I joined Jeremy Bennett to break down exactly how to use AI ethically in research.

We covered:
→ Why AI should support process, not replace thinking 
→ How to manage research while working full-time 
→ The role mentors and structure play in finishing faster 
→ Why "sounding human" is becoming a competitive advantage 
→ How to choose a PhD topic you'll actually stick with

The researchers who get this right will pull ahead. The ones who don't will spend years rebuilding trust.

Have a listen. Link in Jeremy's post below.

What's your biggest question about using AI in your research?

Wondering how to use AI ethically in research?
 
Emmanuel Tsekleves shows you how.
 
In this episode, discover:
 
How to use AI in research the right way. 
The importance of building support systems.
How to manage your time while working full-time.
Why AI should support process, not replace thinking. 
How mentors and structure help you finish faster. 
Why passion matters when choosing a PhD topic. 
Why sounding human is starting to matter.
 
What’s your biggest 2026 goal?  
↳ Let us know in the comments.

I share effective strategies for better research + writing (often with AI). 34k+ citations of my research. University Research Chair & Tenured Full Professor.

I am a tenured University Research Chair and Full Professor with 20+ years of research and teaching experience in user experience (UX) design and research focused on gamification, human-computer interaction, and generative artificial intelligence (AI). My Ph.D. research was on the scientific measurement of UX in interactive entertainment. I direct a research group and a graduate degree program at the University of Waterloo, Stratford School of Interaction Design and Business. I'm also a solopreneur and online creator, helping early-career researchers to unlock their full potential.

I have written 300+ research papers (and counting), edited the major games user research book and several high-impact conference proceedings, started a top-tier academic conference series that is now a journal (CHI PLAY), and started companies for UX research and online training. My research programmes have been funded with millions of dollars over the past decade through joint funding from major companies and the Canadian government.

Many of my papers have won best paper awards and have hundreds of citations. In addition, I run  newsletters, a podcast, write daily on social media, and am fascinated by scientific copywriting.

Besides my academic work, my mission is to make the world a better place by creating more enjoyable experiences with technology and translating academic insights into actionable strategies for everyone.

If you want to know more about my academic writing strategy and how I created this research output over my career, you can take my self-guided online courses at:

→ https://go.lennartnacke.com/chicourse

Email me at linkedin@lennartnacke.com or find me on the following social networks:

• YouTube: @lennartnacke
• BlueSky: @lennartnacke.com
• X: @acagamic
• Instagram: acagamic
• TikTok: @acagamic
• Twitch.tv: acagamic

I also have a newsletter that helps you write better academic papers: https://go.lennartnacke.com/newsletter

Lennart Nacke

In 20 years, I've published 300+ papers (45k+ citations).

None of that came from writing better science.

Most highly cited papers aren’t better written.
 
They’re better structured.

Great papers tell great stories that keep readers hooked.

Here's my academic storytelling framework:

INTRODUCTION
Start with curiosity, not conclusions.

Your introduction should make readers think:
I've never considered that.

• Contrast an intriguing fact to existing work in your field
• Introduce a thought-provoking problem
• Focus on a little-known perspective

This creates immediate engagement.

RELATED WORK
Position your work as the missing piece.

Your related work section isn't a boring literature review.
It's a dinner party where you're introducing the guests.

• Make your work relevant to ongoing debates
• Relate existing research gaps to problems
• Show opposing viewpoints

This builds anticipation for your solution.

METHODS
Make complex methods feel simple.

Nobody wants to decode your methodology, Sheldon.

• Use figures to make complex processes transparent
• What's the benefit of your method over others?
• Explain why your approach is sound

This keeps technical readers engaged.

RESULTS
Lead with your most surprising results. New is good.

Counterintuitive findings grab attention immediately.

• Focus on factual reporting not sensationalism
• Use relatable examples to explain outcomes
• Emphasize unexpected discoveries

This maintains momentum through your findings.

DISCUSSION
Connect your work to the bigger picture of your field.

Your discussion should expand your narrow focus.

• Extend, challenge, or refine our current understanding
• New data, new framework, or better synthesis
• Explain impact on policy, society, or practice

This elevates your research importance.

LIMITATIONS & FUTURE WORK
Frame limitations as opportunities.

Don't apologize for what you couldn't do.

• Suggest specific future research directions
• End with potential valuable implications
• Present constraints as stepping stones

This leaves readers excited about what's next.

Great academic writing isn't just rigid rules.
It's a narrative that pulls readers through your research.
But it has to be original, relevant, & methodologically ok.

Add clear value to your field:

• Open up new areas of investigation
• Confirm crucial findings of others
• Advance knowledge

Great papers aren’t written section by section.
They’re designed as reader journeys.
 
Try this on your next paper:
 
Before submitting, ask one question for every section: 
Why would a smart reader want to keep going?
 
If you can’t answer that clearly, rewrite it.
(Print this cheat sheet as a PDF here: https://lnkd.in/dZXE_kHA)

Research Ops & AI workflows for labs & leaders to ship better papers & grants with less rewriting | Research Chair & HCI Prof @ UWaterloo with 250+ published studies

taplio

The Battle

Emmanuel Tsekleves

Lennart Nacke

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreEmmanuel Tsekleves's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreLennart Nacke's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Emmanuel Tsekleves

Lennart Nacke

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Emmanuel Tsekleves's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreLennart Nacke's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreEmmanuel Tsekleves's LinkedIn Performance