University of Waterloo

My work is in UX and Games.

I solve problems within 

- communication technologies
- design
- psychology
- human-computer interaction
- human health
- wellbeing

I have a background working with biotechnology (namely, physiological sensors), where I evaluated physiological signals elicited by humans when playing games.

I train graduate students, mentor UX researchers, and create innovative technologies with startup companies and universities.

Professor

HCI Games Group

The HCI Games Group is a research group located within the Games Institute and the Stratford School of Interaction Design and Business.

Our graduate students conduct research in:

- gamification
- games user research
- biofeedback and phsyiological game evaluation
- exergames
- storytelling in games
- virtual reality
- realism
- audio in games

We are not open for unsolicited applications. Please reach out to me directly before applying to work with us.

Director

MotiviUX

At MotiviUX, we use gamification to create enjoyable personalized user experiences.

We consult with you to help you create positive behavioural changes with your technology and build habit-forming, self-improvement products, systems, or services.

We help you create engaging customer and employee relationships, or meaningful learning.

Gamification and User Experience Strategist, CEO

Ontario Tech University

My research here combined the areas of entertainment computing, interaction design, affective gaming, and user experience evaluation.

Assistant Professor

University of Saskatchewan

The Human-Computer Interaction Lab is a research facility in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Saskatchewan, where I did research on affective computing, evaluation of virtual worlds, games for fitness, emotions, and user experience in games.

Postdoctoral Research Associate in Affective Computing

Blekinge Institute of Technology

Experimental research into forms of future entertainment, involving new interaction technologies and biofeedback mechanisms. Statistical analysis of psychophysiological player data.

PhD Candidate

FUGA - The fun of gaming: Measuring the human experience of media enjoyment

My main responsibilities in FUGA included game stimulus development and conducting empirical studies of game experience using psychophysiological equipment.

Researcher

Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg

Research into new forms of software engineering, project management, serious games and innovative game design.

Doctoral Student

Self-employed

Designed, implemented and administered several database-driven websites, wikis and linux servers.

Freelance Programmer

impara GmbH

Freelance Game Designer

I am a tenured full University professor with 20+ years of research and teaching experience in user experience (UX) design and research focused on games and gamification. My Ph.D. research was on the scientific measurement of user experience in interactive entertainment. I now direct a research group and a graduate degree program at the University of Waterloo. I also teach a popular paper writing course at the CHI conference and offer it on my website.

I have written 200+ research papers (and counting), edited the major games user research book and several 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 two podcasts, two newsletters, write daily on social media, and am fascinated by scientific copywriting.

Besides my work in the academic world, 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 real people.

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:

• Twitter: @acagamic
• Instagram: acagamic
• TikTok: @acagamic
• Twitch.tv: acagamic
• YouTube: acagamic

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

How I structure my research proposals for maximum impact

Follow this foolproof 9-step SHARP sequence:

1. Introduce your topic

Make your research matter to your audience.
Explain why your problem matters.
Justify your selection.
Set the stage.

2. Develop your causal model

Show how the variables interact.
Demonstrate the logic behind your hypothesis.
Show and tell the relationships you're exploring.

3. State your hypothesis

Your hypothesis is the heart of your research.
Guarantee it's powerful and captivating.
Make it clear, concise, and testable.

4. Define your variables

Operationalize your concepts.
Specify your indicators.
Be clear, no ambiguity.

5. Choose your study design

Will it be experimental?
Observational?
Longitudinal?

Select the design that fits your research question and resources.

6. Describe your population

Who will you study?
What are their characteristics?
How will you ensure your sample represents your target population?

7. Outline your sampling procedure

How will you select your participants?
Random sampling?
Convenience?
Stratified?

Justify your choice and explain how you'll execute it.

8. Select your methods

What measurement tools will you use?
Which statistical analyses will you employ?

Show that your methods are:
• Valid
• Reliable
• Replicable

And appropriate for your research question.

9. Present your operational plan

Give a detailed timeline.
Outline your resource needs.
Demonstrate that your project is feasible.

Read more in: Gross, R., Karyadi, D., Sastroamidjojo, S., & Schultink, W. (1998). Guidelines for the development of research proposals following a Structured, Holistic Approach for a Research Proposal (SHARP). Food and nutrition bulletin, 19(3), 268-282.

Great proposals are scientifically rigorous and persuasively presented.
Be clear, concise, compelling at every step.

Your audience should perceive your research as:
• Important
• Well-designed
• Destined to make an impact

Follow Lennart Nacke to learn more about research and academic writing.
🔔 Every. Single. Day.

P.S. Which step of the research proposal process do you find most challenging?

#writingtips #researchproposal #phd

Lennart Nacke

How to write a related works section

Annotated example of a literature review.

My data's strong, but my paper's weak. 😱

Don't just write; guide your reader.

How to use the PASTOR framework:

1. PROBLEM: Identify the gap
• State a clear gap in existing literature.
• Pinpoint the issue your research tackles.

Be explicit about the problem.

❌ 'This area needs more study.'
✅ 'Current methods fail to address X accurately.'

Vagueness won't cut it.
Clearer = better.

2. AMPLIFY: Make the gap painful.
• Discuss the impact
• Show what we lose by not addressing it.

Emphasize the stakes.

❌ 'It's a significant problem.'
✅ 'Ignoring it costs companies millions annually and impacts the health of X people.'

Impact is measurable, not a claim.

3. STORY: Share a story
• Use a real example.
• Link it to your problem.

Make it relatable.

❌ 'Some people struggle with this.'
✅ 'Dr. Wang couldn't complete her grant-funded research project on human DNA because of this.'

Anonymous examples don't stick.
Real names do.

4. TRANSFORM: Use testimonials academia style
• Cite related work for the problem.
• Point out what's missing.

Show.
Tell.

❌ 'Similar studies have been conducted.'
✅ 'Smith's 2020 study tackled A and B but missed C.'

Don't just name-drop.
Explain exactly what's missing.

5. OFFER: Contribute big
• Show your research contribution.
• Link it back to the gap you identified.

Value over volume.

❌ 'We conducted 5 experiments.'
✅ 'Our research solves X by using a new methodological approach.'

What you did is less crucial than what you achieved.

6. RESPONSE: Call for future action
• Outline follow-up research.
• Suggest practical applications.

Guide, don't just end.

❌ 'More research is needed.'
✅ 'The next step is to apply these findings to Y.'

Avoid vague endings.
Give them the 'So what?'.

That's it. Useful for you?
🔄 Share with a colleague. Or just all of them.

P.S.: Do you use a framework for your academic writing?

#writingtips #phd #research

How to use PASTOR in academic writing

Steal my toolkit for appraising evidence in systematic reviews

A systematic review is only as good as its appraisal tools.

7 critical appraisal tools every systematic reviewer should know:

1. Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool

The gold standard for assessing bias in randomized controlled trials.
It covers selection, performance, detection, attrition, and reporting bias.
A must-have for any review including RCTs.

2. CASP Checklists

The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme offers a suite of checklists.

CASP has you covered for reviewing:

• Qualitative
• Quantitative
• Economic studies

A great all-rounder for various study types.

3. JBI Critical Appraisal Tools

The Joanna Briggs Institute provides a comprehensive appraisal toolset.
There's a specific checklist for each study design.
From case reports to RCTs.

Perfect for reviews with a mix of evidence types.

4. STROBE Statement

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies.
This checklist is essential for appraising observational studies.
It covers cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional designs.

5. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT)

Reviewing qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies?
The MMAT is your one-stop-shop.
It assesses the methodological quality of all three types.

6. QualSyst

A powerful tool for assessing qualitative research.
Covers:
• Research team reflexivity
• Study design rigour
• Data collection and analysis depth

Essential for any review heavy on qualitative evidence.

7. ROBIS

The Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews tool.
Because even systematic reviews need appraising.
ROBIS helps you assess the methodological rigour of other reviews.

Crucial for reviews of reviews or meta-reviews.

No single appraisal tool is perfect.
The right tool depends on the study designs in your review.
And your overall methodology.

Don't be afraid to customize or combine tools to fit your needs.

Be thorough, transparent, and consistent in your critical appraisal.
Your review is only as strong as the evidence it includes.

🔄 Share with a colleague. Or all of them.

P.S. Do you use a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews? 

#literaturereviews #phd #research

7 tools for appraising evidence in systematic reviews

A research paper is a story, not just a report.

I used this formula to write 100+ groundbreaking research papers.

How I make each section of my research papers count:

1. Introduction: Make Them Care

This is your chance to grab the reader's attention.

Why should they care about your research?
What's the big problem you're tackling?
How will your work make a difference?

Sell them on the significance of your study.

2. Literature Review: Set the Stage

Don't just summarize previous research.
Use it strategically.

Highlight the key findings and methods.
You'll build upon them in your discussion.
Show how your work fits into the existing landscape.

Prepare the reader for the insights to come.

3. Body: Get Specific

This is where you get into the details.
Present your methodology, data, and results with precision and clarity.

Don't hold back on the specifics.
The more transparent and thorough.
The more credible your findings will be.

4. Discussion: Bring It All Together

Now it's time to zoom out.

What do your findings mean in the grand scheme of things?
How do they advance your field?
What are the broader implications?

This is where you connect the dots.
Show the true significance of your work.

5. Conclusion: Drive It Home

End with a bang, not a whimper.
Recap why your advancement matters.
Emphasize the key takeaways.

How has your research pushed your field forward?

Make them glad they read your paper.

Each section does a specific job.
Get the goal of each one right.
Write a paper that not only informs but also engages.

Excite your reader.

Your paper is not a collection of parts.
It's a cohesive story.

Each section should build upon the last.
Lead the reader to a satisfying conclusion.

🔄 Useful? Share with a fellow researcher!

P.S.: Which section do you find most challenging to write?

#writingtips #phd #research

I used this formula to write 100+ research papers

I discovered the secret to captivating academic writing:

Academic storytelling.

5 storytelling techniques to master the art:

1. Sustain a compelling narrative

Don't just sprinkle anecdotes.
Weave a cohesive story.

Create
• Suspense
• A narrative arc
• A sense of progression

Keep your readers hooked until the very end.

2. Identify the stories within your research

Every project has multiple tales to tell.

The subjects' experiences.
The researcher's journey.
The historical context.

The research itself.

Choose the most engaging angles.

3. Pan to different perspectives

Add depth and interest by shifting focus.
Share an individual's story to illustrate relevance.
Provide historical background to set the stage.

Analyze a specific event to enrich the larger narrative.

4. Craft a compelling narrative structure

Decide where to begin.

Start with

• The research question
• The context backstory
• A life-changing example

Guide your readers forward from there.
Keep them wondering what happens next.

5. Make even abstract concepts characters

A good story doesn't always need a human protagonist.

Make an institution, methodology, or technique the "character."
Make them face challenges and undergo change.
Bring your research to life.

Academic storytelling is about more than just reporting findings.
It's about taking your readers on a journey of discovery.

The key is to find the most compelling threads.
Find them in your research.

Weave them together to both inform and inspire.

💡 Find out more in my newsletter in the comments below.

P.S. What's the most engaging academic story you've ever read?

#writingtips #phd #storytelling

Want to elevate your academic writing?

I got published in top journals by avoiding these 3 brutal mistakes

1. Monotonous Sentence Structure

Avoid falling into the trap of repetitive patterns.

"The [...] The [...] The [...]"

or

However, [...]
Additionally, [...]
Therefore, [...]

Mix it up.

Vary your sentence openings.

Change structures to keep your reader engaged.

2. Unnecessarily Complex Language

Don't use a $10 word when a $1 word will do.
Yes, that's true in academic writing, too.

"use" not "utilize"
"aware" not "cognizant"

Personal style has a role.
But aim for clarity over complexity.

Avoid confusion!

Don't be fancy!

3. Obscurity for Obscurity's Sake

There's no value in making your writing obscure.

Complicated words simply suck.

Change them.

Convoluted prose doesn't enhance scientific value.

It doesn't make you sound more knowledgeable to experts in your field.
Older journals feature dry, boring, direct, and terse writing.

The more traditional, the drier the prose.

It's the newer journals where creative writing flourishes.

The key is to communicate your ideas clearly and concisely.

Your writing should illuminate.

Not obfuscate.

🔄 Useful? Share it now with your network.

P.S.: Does your writing illuminate or obfuscate?

#writingtips #phd #research

How to write for the best journals in your field

I cut my systematic review time in half with these tools.

5 underrated tools for literature reviews.

1. Covidence

From importing studies to screening, data extraction, quality assessment.
This web-based platform designed specifically for systematic reviews
Lets you manage every step.

Collaborate with your team in real-time.

2. DistillerSR

Automates many tasks. Reduces errors.
Makes reviews transparent and audit-ready.
Comprehensive systematic review software.

Ideal for complex reviews in fields like management and business.

3. Rayyan

A free tool for primary study selection.
Quickly screen titles and abstracts.

Assign labels.
Resolve conflicts with your team.
Export your results to ref manager software.

4. RevMan

For preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews.
Has built-in statistical tools and graphical displays.
Useful for meta-analyses.

5. Zotero

A popular reference management tool.

Organize your studies.
Deduplicate your library.
Easily insert citations into your manuscript.

Integrates with many other systematic review tools.

Bonus:

Review your citation graphs with:
• Connected Papers
• Research Rabbit
• Litmaps
• Inciteful

The right tools make your systematic review more efficient.
You want it to be accurate.
Ideally collaborative.

Focus on the critical thinking, not the tedious tasks.

Choose tools that fit your team's needs, budget, and technical expertise.
Mix and match to create your ideal systematic review toolkit.

Follow Lennart Nacke for more academic writing and research goodness.

P.S.: What's your go-to systematic review tool?

#research #phd #writingtips #litreviews


How I silenced the "your n is too small" critics

A manifesto for defending qualitative research

Qualitative researchers face criticism about small sample sizes.

Here's how to address these concerns effectively:

1.  Understand the context of the critique

Is the person questioning the value of
• Small samples
• Generalizability
• Data saturation?

Clarify their specific concerns before responding.

The obsession with large sample sizes stifles innovation in research.

2.  Avoid justifying qual research using quant criteria

Qualitative studies use various philosophies:

Subjectivism
Truth is a personal view

Relativism
Truth is context or culture

Interpretivism
Meaning is understanding

Constructionism
Social experiences build knowledge.

3.  Invite inquiry into your work's philosophical assumptions

Explain that these philosophies inform qualitative methodologies.

They are not positivism.

Or post-positivism.

4. Respect the person's agency if they remain unconvinced

Reiterate that you are following established procedures in your field.

They're grounded in specific philosophies of inquiry.

Provide relevant citations to support your stance.

5.  Qualitative research focuses on depth and insights, not generalizability

Remind qual-friendly critics of this.

Qual research uses purposeful, criterion-driven sampling.

To select impactful cases, not to mirror entire populations.

6.  Conduct a data inventory to show study depth

Calculate the raw data pages from:

• Interviews
• Observations
• Document analysis

• Other data sources

Analyzing this much data demands serious time and effort.

Because you cultivate critical, analytical insights.

7.  Data saturation hinges on your approach

It's not always the goal in qualitative studies.

Solid theoretical and methodological frameworks guide you.

They shape your sample and research strategy.

8.  Sample size depends on resources for solo researchers

Quality over quantity:

More participants don't always mean better insights.

Superficial data treatment can undermine the value of your work.

9.  For minoritized scholars in hostile spaces:

Leverage culturally-situated philosophies in your work.

Stand firm in your convictions.

Challenge suggestions that clash with your research as culturally incongruent.

🔄 Share with a qualitative researcher.

P.S.: What's your first line of defence for your qualitative research?

#research #qualitative #quantitative

Struggling to find a research-teaching balance?

No, because professors do 13 other jobs.

Teaching is just 1 of them.

1. Planner

Design:

→ Compelling assessments
→ Effective lesson plans
→ Engaging curricula

2. Administrator

Manage:

→ Department paperwork
→ Student records
→ Course logistics

3. Critic

Provide:

→ Constructive feedback
→ Guidance for growth
→ Detailed evaluations

4. Researcher

Conduct:

→ Discipline-specific studies
→ Literature reviews
→ Data analysis

5. Writer

Produce:

→ Conference submissions
→ Research papers
→ Grant proposals

6. Manager

Supervise:

→ Department projects
→ Graduate assistants
→ Research teams

7. Mentor

Support:

→ Student development
→ Personal wellbeing
→ Career guidance

8. Experimenter

Facilitate:

→ Field investigations
→ Research projects
→ Lab activities

9. Consultant

Offer expertise:

→ To the wider community
→ To government bodies
→ To industry partners

10. Fundraiser

Secure:

→ Department resources
→ Research grants
→ Scholarships

11. Marketer

Promote:

→ Department achievements
→ Programs and courses
→ Student opportunities

12. Presenter

Share:

→ Insights at conferences
→ Research findings
→ Innovative ideas

13. Lobbyist

Champion:

→ Importance of their discipline
→ Academic integrity
→ Student success

Which job did I miss? Which job would you add?
Share and comment.

#phd #academia #research

Why UX should always come before UI in the design process

5 ways UX and UI work together to create great products:

Here's why UX is not UI:

1. UX is Strategy. UI is Tactics.

UX is the grand plan.
The overall experience.
The journey from start to finish.

UI is the specific touchpoints along the way.
The buttons. The forms.
The visual interface.

2. UX is the "Why?" UI is the "How?"

UX is the user's needs and goals.
The problem we're trying to solve.
The reason behind every design decision.

UI is how we implement those decisions.
The actual design solutions.

3. UX is Invisible. UI is Visible.

When UX is done well, you don't even notice it.

It's seamless.
Effortless.
Intuitive.

UI is what you interact with directly.
It's the tangible manifestation of UX.

4. UX is Empathy. UI is Aesthetics.

UX is all about understanding the user.
Putting yourself in their shoes.
Designing with empathy.

UI makes that design visually appealing.
Visual appeal and "juiciness" are engaging.

5. UX is the Foundation. UI is the Facade.

Without good UX, even the most beautiful UI will fall flat.
UX is the solid foundation that UI is built upon.
Get the UX right, and the UI will follow.

But while many people complain about the differences.
UX and UI are partners, not rivals.

They work together to create useful and usable products.
Both functional AND beautiful.

Good UX designers know they're different.
Great UX designers understand their distinct roles.
Amazing UX designers know how they complement each other.

🔄 Share with a UX designer or researcher.

P.S.: What's your favourite example of great UX and UI working together?

#ux #ui #design

How I made my writing more engaging with one simple trick.

Monotonous writing is costing you readers.

Steal my formula for writing that sings:

Vary sentence length.

1. Embrace the 20/20 Rule

What are the 20% of sentences you should delete?
What are the 20% of sentences you should keep?
From Tim Ferriss. Works.

2. Create rhythm to keep readers engaged

Vary your short-long sentence ratio.
Short is punchy.
Long is bunchy.

3. Short sentences are powerful

They grab attention.
They make a point. 
Use liberally.

4. Long sentences have their place, too.

They create a sense of flow and continuity.
They allow you to explore complex ideas.
They add nuance and detail.

5. We hear what we read

Words have visuals.
Words have sounds.
We hear them in our minds.

6. Make music with your words

There is a time and place for each.
Finding a delicate balance is the trick.
Varying sentence length creates music.

Your sentences want to sing.
Give them a voice.

7. Boring Is the Enemy

Monotony where engaging writing goes to die.

If every sentence is the same length
Every sentence would be just so boring.
Your writing would feel flat and lifeless.
 
Vary length.
It's the antidote to boredom.

Great writing creates a UX for your reader.
Varying sentence length the powerful tool for this.
Create a more engaging and memorable experience.

Read your writing out loud.
Listen to the rhythm of your sentences.
Make adjustments until your prose sings.

P.S.: What's your favourite writing example that masterfully varies sentence length?

#writingtips #writing #phd

I got my last 5 papers accepted without major revisions.

Here are 7 strategies for smoother paper acceptances:

1. Outline the Urgent Impact

Grab the reviewer's attention right away.
Highlight the pressing need for your research.
Point to the gaps in current knowledge that your work fills.

2. Accentuate Novelty & Comparability

Emphasize what's new and original about your approach.
But also show how it fits into the existing landscape.
Reviewers love novelty grounded in comparability.

3. Keep Methods Replicable & Simple

Don't overcomplicate things.
Use methods that are easy to understand and replicate.
The more accessible your approach, the harder it is to poke holes in it.

4. Explain Findings Visually

A picture is worth a thousand words.
Use clear, compelling visuals to communicate your results.
Well-crafted figures and tables can preempt many reviewer questions.

5. Widen the Perspective

Show how your findings fit into the bigger picture.
Connect your work to broader themes and implications.
Reviewers want to see the forest, not just your trees.

6. Stimulate Discussion

Don't just present data. Interpret it.
Discuss what it means and why it matters.
Engage the reviewer in a thoughtful dialogue about your work.

7. Excite with Potential

End on a high note.
Highlight the exciting possibilities your work opens up.
Leave the reviewer buzzing with the potential impact of your research.

Anticipate the average reviewer's criticisms at every step.
Craft your paper with a reviewer's perspective in mind.
This approach smooths the path to acceptance.

Getting accepted with minor revisions isn't about luck.
It's about strategic, thoughtful presentation of your research.

🔄 Share with an academic or colleague.

P.S.: Which of these strategies have you found most effective in your own publishing journey?

#writingtips #phd #research

Feeling stuck in your UX career?

UX career growth isn't about luck, it's about strategy.

Tomorrow's guest speaker Christopher Nguyen will show us on LinkedIn live how to navigate your career as a UX designer by learning about the different roles and levels.

Here's your roadmap to success until we get into the details tomorrow:

1. Understand the UX landscape
Familiarize yourself with the different roles.

Strategist.
Researcher.
Visual designer.
Interaction designer.

Know where you fit and where you want to go.

2. Identify your current level
Are you a junior, mid-level, or senior designer?

Recognize your strengths and areas for growth.
Be honest with yourself about your skills and experience.

3. Focus on high-impact skills
Prioritize learning and practicing the skills that matter most.

User research.
Wireframing.
Prototyping.

Sharpen the skills that will take you to the next level.

4. Seek out growth opportunities

Take on challenging projects.
Volunteer for stretch assignments.
Attend workshops and conferences.

Never stop learning and pushing yourself outside your comfort zone.

5. Develop a long-term vision
Where do you want to be in 5, 10, 15 years?

Set ambitious but achievable goals.
Create a plan to acquire the skills and experiences you'll need.
Stay focused on the bigger picture.

Your UX career is always a journey, never a destination.
Embrace the twists and turns.
Never stop growing.

If you're curious, humble, and hungry for growth, join us for tomorrow's talk.
10 AM Eastern Time. 
See you then.

P.S. What's the most valuable lesson you've learned in your UX career so far?
#ux #uxdesign #careergrowth

Hooray! 🎉 I am absolutely thrilled to announce that our latest paper on "Social Virtual Reality" has been conditionally accepted for presentation at the prestigious ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (ACM DIS).

This achievement wouldn’t have been possible without the visionary and outstanding leadership of Eugene Kukshinov and the exceptional dedication of our team members, including Daniel Harley, Kata Szita, PhD, Cayley MacArthur, and Lennart Nacke.

A big congratulations to all my co-authors! We are eager to complete the revisions and can’t wait to share the final draft with our professional network. Stay tuned for more updates!

#ACM_DIS #VR #SVR #Design

Every author struggles to find their focus first.

But the angle of your research papers is what gets them accepted.

How to write an HCI research paper people will actually read:

Focus on one of these four types:

1. Paradigm-shifting studies

Make readers question what they thought they knew.
Challenge existing theories.
Provide new insights.

2. Comprehensive literature reviews

Synthesize the current state of knowledge.
Identify existing gaps and opportunities.
Help readers navigate a subfield.

3. Innovative methodologies

Give readers fresh tools to enhance their work.
Streamline existing processes.
Introduce novel techniques.

4. Problem-solving systems

Show readers how to make a tangible impact.
Demonstrate practical applications.
Address real-world challenges.

The key to a compelling HCI paper?
Offer something of value to your readers.

New knowledge.
A practical solution.
A fresh perspective.

Inform, inspire, and empower your audience.

🔄 Share with a friend if it's useful.

P.S.: Which type of HCI research paper do you find most engaging?

#writingtips #phd #hci

4 types of HCI research papers people will want to read

My systematic reviews used to lack credibility.

But this all changed when I started doing this...

Critical strategies for transparent review reporting:

1. Use Reporting Checklists
Tailor your reporting to the review type.

PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
MOOSE for meta-analyses of observational studies.
CONSORT for randomized controlled trials.

These checklists are your transparency roadmap.

2. Document Your Protocol
Clearly outline your review protocol upfront.

If you deviate from it, document why.
Transparency means showing your work.
Warts and all.

No hidden shortcuts or surprise detours.

3. Provide a Flow Diagram
A picture is worth a thousand words.

Use a PRISMA flow diagram to illustrate.
Show your study screening and selection process.
Show readers exactly how you navigated the literature.

A good image speaks volumes.

4. Detail Your Search Strategy
Your literature search is the foundation of your review.

Report your search terms, databases used, and search dates.
No reader should be wondering how you found your studies.
Leave no stone unturned.

Don't make readers guess about your search.

5. Report Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
Your criteria are your quality control.

Clearly state what studies made the cut and why.
Demo that you're unbiased in your selection.
Show readers you've been systematic.

Break down why you've chosen the studies.

6. Describe Critical Appraisal
Describe your critical appraisal process and tools.

Show readers you've carefully weighed the evidence.
Show you've considered the data.
Not just taking it at face value.

Your included studies aren't all created equal.

7. State Data Extraction Methods
Your data is the heart of your review.

Explicitly state what and how you collected:
• Extraction methods
• Variables
• Tools

Give readers a clear window into your process.

8. Outline Analysis & Synthesis
Your analysis and synthesis turn data into meaning.

Clearly outline your methods.
Synthesis breathes life into data.
Show readers how you pieced the puzzle together.

Why is your picture trustworthy?

9. Discuss Heterogeneity & Bias
No review is perfect.

Discuss the sources of heterogeneity.
Explore the roots of diverse sources.
Do a risk of bias assessment.

Don't hide your limitations.
Own them with transparency.

10. Be Transparent About Funding & Conflicts
Your credibility is everything.

Clearly state your funding sources.
Maintain your credibility and integrity
Elaborate on any potential conflicts of interest.

Show readers you have nothing to hide.

Transparency goes beyond following checklists.
It's about offering readers a clear, honest view into your process.

The more transparent you are, the more trust you build.

Approach your review reporting with the mindset of "show, don't tell."
Show readers exactly how you did the review right.
Every step of the way.

P.S.: What's your top tip for ensuring transparency in systematic reviews?
#writingtips #phd #research #litreview

Your dream UX job is waiting.

This course could be your missing piece...

(Giveaway ends soon!)

Christopher Nguyen has given me one free Job Sprint course to give away.

You’ll get:

• 165 micro video lessons
• 20 guides & templates
• 16 hours of training
• 14 workshops

Designed to get you a UX job that’s

→ Flexible
→ Fulfilling
→ Financially secure

❤️ Like and 🔄 repost this post for a chance to win 🤞

Winner randomly selected on 29 April during the launch event.

(🔗 link in comments)

#jobsprint #uxjobs #ux

Struggling to conduct a high-quality systematic review?

How I use PICO to focus my research questions.

1. Define Your PICO Question

P → Population
↳Who are you studying?

I → Intervention
↳What treatment or exposure are you investigating?

C → Comparison
↳What are you comparing the intervention to?

O → Outcome
↳What result are you measuring?

2. Develop Search Strategy

Use your PICO elements to create targeted search terms.
Combine them using Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT).

Search multiple databases.
Comprehensive coverage.

3. Set Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria

Decide what studies to include based on PICO elements.

Define other criteria

↳Study design
↳Date range
↳Language

Be specific and consistent.

4. Screen and Select Studies

Apply inclusion/exclusion criteria to titles and abstracts.
Read full texts of potentially relevant studies.
I repeat: READ THEM!

Document reasons for exclusion.
Use two independent reviewers.

5. Extract and Analyze Data

Use a standardized form.
Extract data from the included studies.
Assess study quality using validated tools.

Synthesize data narratively.
Or meta-analytically.

Whatever is appropriate for your question.

PICO guides you to a systematic, transparent, and reproducible review.

Draw meaningful conclusions.
Find relevant evidence.
Focus your questions.

You've got to be thorough, consistent, and precise at every step.

Share if you care.

P.S. Do you use PICO in your systematic reviews?

#phd #PICO #research

Finding the right journal for your paper can be a daunting task.

But how? Don't let your hard work go to waste.

Follow these 5 secrets to choose the perfect journal for your research:

1. Scrutinize the journal's scope and target audience

Ensure your topic aligns with the journal's focus.

Mismatch = inevitable rejection.

Fit = fighting chance!

2. Dive deep into recently published articles

Analyze their style, length, methods, and quality.

Your paper must meet or exceed these standards.

3. Weigh the journal's impact factor and reputation

Higher impact = wider reach and greater influence.

But also more competition and tougher peer review.

Are you up for it?

4. Investigate typical turnaround times for decisions

Some journals are notorious for painfully slow reviews.

If you're in a rush, factor in expected wait times.

5. Check for submission fees and open access options

Understand the journal's publishing model.

Traditional journals may charge author fees.

Open access has costs, too.
Budget to avoid unwelcome surprises

The cardinal rule of journal selection?
Know your stuff.

Be brutally honest about the strength of your work.

Aim for a realistic target.
Not an aspirational long shot.
Achievable goals, not fabulations

Publishing in a mid-tier journal is better than consistent top-tier rejections.

Treat this as a training ground to get your reps in.
But don't sell yourself short, either.

If you have spectacular results, go all out.
Charge. Surge. Explode.

Blow their minds.
The key is to find the sweet spot.
A respected journal wanting your work.

Invest time upfront to research your options.

Choose strategically.
Submit confidently.
That's it.

🔄 Share with a colleague. Or all of them.

P.S.: What's your strategy to find the right journals?

#writingtips #phd #research

Taplio

Lennart Nacke's Linkedin Analytics

Lennart Nacke

What is Lennart talking about?

Lennart Nacke's Best Posts (last 30 days)

Want to drive more opportunities from LinkedIn?

Taplio

.css-1jgreyo{background-image:linear-gradient(284deg, rgba(39,43,72,1) 0%, rgba(33,47,183,1) 100%);color:transparent;-webkit-background-clip:text;background-clip:text;}Lennart Nacke's Linkedin Analytics

Lennart Nacke

What is Lennart talking about?

Lennart Nacke's Best Posts .css-qqfgvy{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);}(last 30 days)

Want to drive more opportunities from LinkedIn?

Lennart Nacke's Linkedin Analytics

Lennart Nacke's Best Posts (last 30 days)