A few weeks back, I started using VoiceIn - I'm now talking to my PC rather than typing on my keyboard. I use it for anything from LinkedIn posts to comments, through to comments on articles and reports from my students. Over the past two weeks, I've saved almost a full day of work that I could dedicate to my research. Earlier today, we had an Inner Circle call, and some of you asked me how I manage to do everything I do. And this is one of the examples how I try to optimize my time. Rather than thinking about which activities I can cut, I'm thinking about how I can become more efficient at the things I usually do. I type quite fast anyway, but it is much easier & faster to speak rather than type. Obviously, these kinds of tools are not perfect; you still have to correct them sometimes, and you have to assess and make sure that their output aligns with what you wanted to say. It might also be less structured, so you might need to improve the structure of your writing. If you want to try here's a link that's an affiliate link. You can try it for free for 7 seven days - that's what I did. Then I decided to get a full license. It's not that expensive $29 for a lifetime so it's not even a subscription Let me know whether you've tried it and what you think. https://tryvoiceink.com?atp=drhanak

Tell me what support do you need to inform the activities in this community.

Today @ 10am - 11am London time https://meet.google.com/qnd-kdtg-epf I’m hosting a Professional Development session on Responsible AI in the classroom and would love it if you could join me for a conversation about navigating the evolving AI landscape. We’ll briefly cover AI detection, what other educators are doing, and media literacy in the age of AI.

During our last Inner Circle call, we spent almost half the session not on methods, not on journals, but on… confidence. The research novelty was strong. The research design was solid. But the real friction was internal: “Some days I’m sure journals will be interested in this. Other days I’m convinced no one will care and it’s already outdated.” If that sounds familiar, you’re not alone. A few patterns keep coming up with PhD students and early‑career researchers: - “No novelty” from reviewers often means the gap and contribution aren’t visible enough, not that they don’t exist. - International/visiting scholars carry an extra “Who am I to publish on this?” when their context isn’t the “usual” one. - We quickly forget our small wins and treat a single rejection as a referendum on our entire career. Here are three shifts that helped the person on that call – and might help you too: 1. Keep a “wins log” Every week, write down specific wins: a clear paragraph, constructive feedback, a good question you answered at a seminar, a supervisor saying “this is promising”. On the bad days, you have evidence that you’re not standing still. 2. Treat confidence as a practice, not a personality trait Confidence is not “I always know the answer”. Confidence is “I’m willing to show my work, listen, and improve.” Every time you send a draft, ask a question, or present unfinished work, you’re doing a rep in the confidence gym. 3. Separate your value from reviewer decisions In many fields, 10–20% acceptance rates are normal. Rejection is the default outcome, even for very good work. The useful question is not “Am I good enough?” but “What is this decision telling me about how to sharpen my problem, gap, and contribution?” On that call, once we normalised the imposter feelings and anchored back to actual evidence of progress, you could feel the shift: from “Maybe I shouldn’t be doing this” to “Okay, how do we get this paper out?” In my Inner Circle, this is exactly the mix we work on every week: