Perhaps I have underestimated the value of writing books and book chapters? I stopped years ago, might need to come back to this long format. Are there other long format options aside from books?
Every writing teacher who told you "be concise" accidentally murdered your best ideas.
In 1987, psychologist James Pennebaker ran an experiment that broke every assumption about how human creativity works. He divided college students into two groups and gave them the same creative writing prompt. Group A had to write for 15 minutes without stopping, elaborating on every thought that surfaced. Group B had to write concise, polished responses in the same time frame.
The elaborate writers didn't just produce more ideas. They produced fundamentally different types of ideas. Brain scans showed their prefrontal cortex entered a state resembling REM sleep, where distant neural networks suddenly started talking to each other. The concise writers showed patterns identical to focused problem-solving mode, which actively suppresses creative connections.
Six months later, Pennebaker tested both groups again. The elaborate writers had continued generating novel solutions to unrelated problems at twice the rate of the concise group. The act of elaborative writing had permanently rewired their associative thinking patterns.
The advice sounds logical. Cut the fat. Trim the excess. Get to the point faster. What they missed is that ideation and communication are completely different cognitive processes, and optimizing for one destroys the other.
When you write elaborately, your brain enters what cognitive scientists call "divergent thinking mode." Each additional sentence forces your mind to find new angles, make unexpected connections, discover relationships between concepts that would never surface in a stripped-down version. The elaboration itself becomes the thinking tool.
Watch what happens when you try to explain a simple concept in 2000 words instead of 200. Your brain refuses to repeat itself. It starts mining deeper layers, pulling up examples you forgot you knew, connecting dots that seemed unrelated five minutes ago. The constraint of length becomes a creativity multiplier because your mind has to work harder to fill the space meaningfully.
Most people reverse this process. They think first, then write down the conclusions. They treat writing as a documentation tool for thoughts that already exist. This kills the discovery mechanism completely.
Real creative thinking happens during the writing, not before it. The elaborate sentences force your brain to search its entire knowledge network for supporting ideas, contradictory evidence, parallel examples, deeper implications. Every time you expand a thought, you're asking your neural pathways to surface material that stays buried when you think in headlines.
Professional researchers figured this out decades ago. They don't brainstorm in bullet points. They write massive exploratory documents where every paragraph spawns three new questions. They let themselves ramble across pages because they know the rambling is where breakthrough insights hide. The connections emerge in the elaboration, not despite it.
There's another layer most people miss. When you write elaborately about a topic, you're not just exploring what you already know about it. You're discovering what you didn't realize you knew about it. The act of expansion forces you to reach into adjacent knowledge areas, pull connections from unrelated experiences, surface insights that were sitting just below conscious awareness.
Pennebaker's follow-up studies revealed something even stranger. Students who wrote elaborately about completely unrelated topics showed improved creative problem-solving across all domains. The cognitive muscle of elaborative thinking transfers. Train it on one subject, and it enhances your ability to find novel solutions everywhere else.
Your brain was designed to think in stories, not summaries.
Feed it complexity and watch creativity multiply.
To mask or not to mask – a recently published protocol article proposes that using interdisciplinary methodology is the key to reliable answers 😷
Read the article in "Systematic Reviews" here: https://t.co/HzLt9TdY3y
@trishgreenhalgh@Jon_Williamson_@CraigSL01
Four years ago, Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine…Four years of loss. Four years of courage. Four years of defending freedom.
I call on my Australian friends to stand with the Ukrainian community in capital cities across Australia. Join us in Sydney, 6pm at St Mary’s Cathedral Square.
Full list of events: https://t.co/Oqam972bOc
Your presence matters. Ukraine is not alone. 🇺🇦
when #peerreview includes a statement that no AI systems were used in the process of study evaluation, yet the peer review report includes:
🔬 Study Design and Methodological Rigor
📊 Data Extraction, Reporting & Analysis
📚 Literature Review and Contextualization
😳😳
As Russia has weaponised winter, I urge Australians to support the Warmth for Ukraine fundraising campaign launched by the Ukrainian community.
The situation in Ukraine is critical:
⚠️ Millions of people are without electricity, heating, or running water
⚠️ A state of emergency has been declared in the energy sector
⚠️ Every power plant in Ukraine has been targeted by Russia
⚠️ Temperatures are plunging to –20°C overnight
📢 Please consider donating to the AFUO-supported campaigns:
💙 Ukraine Crisis Appeal: https://t.co/5EtccocGLy
💛 Future Ukraine – Warmth for Ukraine: https://t.co/N7gfd07oBM
Every contribution helps keep families warm and saves lives this winter.
The number of duplicate submissions in 2026 is already concerningly high! Authors who think they can publish the same work with the same methods & same data in multiple journals risk being excluded at the level of publishing houses, not journals.
cheat at your own risk!
Advances in systematic review methods via AI is the most current hot topic; but there is deeper work to talk about. Testing the limits of traditional review methodology without immediately seeking a transition to AI thinking 'faster is the answer'. Read more: @trishgreenhalgh
Many questions in healthcare research involve a notion of cause and effect, so it’s no surprise that causal inference is currently undergoing a surge in popularity in health research.
Health researchers need to fully understand the underlying assumptions
https://t.co/aZsryulnq4
@EndNoteNews trying very hard to kill off its market share...if software devs hate users, this is the way to show them. What software should I move to?
MDPI is committed to increasing transparency and embracing openness throughout the research process.
Open peer review is one way MDPI shows its commitment to enriching the scientific record by ensuring transparency and openness.
Very much looking forward to representing @UniofAdelaide, School of Public Health, JBI and working with the Faculty of Nursing, @cmuofficial_tw, a great university with dynamic Faculty leadership.