If your research lives only in journal PDFs… you’re leaving impact on the table. A LinkedIn newsletter turns your expertise into a series people can subscribe to (and actually get notified about). Because when someone subscribes, LinkedIn can show them updates in-feed, and, depending on their settings, send notifications and an email when you publish. ​ And importantly: anyone can discover, read, and share your newsletter, while members can subscribe. It works well for me. ​ Here’s the play: 1. Pick ONE “research theme” Not your whole department. One theme you can own for 6–12 months. Example: "Decarbonisation by Prof Hanak”. 2. Turn papers into episodes Each issue = one idea. The goal isn’t to impress reviewers. It’s to help smart non-specialists apply your thinking. 3. Use the 3-line promise Hook (one line). What they’ll learn (one line). Who it’s for (one line). (Then earn the click.) 4. Write like a human Start with the problem you’re solving. Then the insight. Then the “so what”. Add the citation/link at the end for those who want the full method. 5. Make it scannable Short lines. White space. Simple headings. Your newsletter is read by busy people between meetings (and on phones). 6. Close with an invitation End with a question, or a P.S. that tells people what to do next. ​ Example: “P.S. Want the template I use to turn a paper into a newsletter issue?” Keep a publishing rhythm you can sustain Monthly is better than weekly-that-dies-in-3-weeks. Consistency builds trust (and subscribers). If you’re an academic: what would your newsletter be called—and what’s issue number 1?

Last week we reviewed two papers in real time, and the same “hidden blockers” showed up that often lead to slow reviews, major revisions, or desk rejection. If you’re preparing a manuscript, use this as a checklist before you submit. 1) Abstracts: stop starting with “what we did” A strong abstract reads like a story, not a methods note. Use this sequence: - Big-picture context (why the topic matters). - Specific research gap (what’s missing in the literature). - What you did (1–2 sentences). - Key results (headline numbers only). - Why it matters (one clear implication). Also: avoid abbreviations in the abstract unless truly unavoidable—clarity wins. 2) Literature review ≠ research gap A table summarising prior studies is useful, but it doesn’t automatically create novelty. You still need 2–3 explicit sentences that say: - What others have done. - Where the limitations are. - How your work addresses those limitations. If your novelty requires “reading between the lines,” it’s not clear enough. 3) Results: description is not discussion Many drafts report trends (increase/decrease) but don’t interpret them. What strengthens a paper immediately: - Benchmark your findings against prior studies (agree? contradict? extend?). - Quantify differences (relative errors, percentage differences), not just “higher/lower.” - Make the insight explicit: “This suggests…”, “This implies…” 4) Structure signals quality Common fixes that make papers feel more “journal-ready”: - Avoid lots of one-paragraph subsections—group results by themes (e.g., “design parameters,” “operating parameters”). - Keep figure labels consistent (Fig. 4a/4b rather than “left/right”). - Use equation formatting consistently, and consider a nomenclature/abbreviations table. - Add limitations + future work (show you understand what your study did not cover). What’s next I’ll run these peer-review sessions weekly or bi-weekly, depending on demand, so the whole community benefits from repeated patterns and practical fixes.

I'm going live soon and will review a few papers today - if I don't select yours, don't worry, we'll make it a regular thing in the community! Here's the link to the session https://www.skool.com/live/l63ZPK3vPMp

Many of you are here to network but we don’t often know who is doing what - let’s change this: In a few words, please explain what is your core research area. Enjoy!

You've probably seen this. “New paper.” “New project.” “New award.” And then they wonder why collaboration invites don’t follow. Here’s the lesson I learned the hard way: visibility doesn’t come from posting more. It comes from showing up where the right people already pay attention. Try this 15‑minute routine for the next 30 days: - Build a “Comment List” of 15 people: 5 in your niche, 5 adjacent, 5 decision‑makers (industry, funders, policy, lab heads). - Leave 5 comments/day that add value (not “Great post”): 1 insight, 1 implication, 1 practical example from your work. - When you comment, write for the room, not just the author (assume 500 silent readers). - Once/week, write 1 post that turns a paper into outcomes: Problem → What we did → What changed → Who it helps. - When someone replies to your comment, send 1 simple DM: “Thanks for the discussion—are you working on X as well? Happy to share a relevant resource.” If you did this for 30 days, what topic would you want to be known for on LinkedIn?