When academics say they dislike writing or think of it as a chore, I worry. If we don’t communicate our research clearly, our work can’t be used, tested or built on. Science depends on our willingness to articulate our ideas, invite critique and explain our findings, and writing is the mechanism through which discovery becomes knowledge. It is not a separate endeavour.
As professor of quantitative epidemiology in veterinary medicine, I work in large interdisciplinary research teams: epidemiologists, molecular biologists, statisticians, veterinarians, computer scientists, clinicians. The work is intellectually rich and occasionally chaotic, but we all write. Over the years, I’ve developed habits and principles that guide how I write and how I collaborate. They are not complicated but they have made my work better, my teams stronger and my days less stressful. I hope they might be useful to others navigating the increasingly complex world of academic writing.
Write every day
My most important habit is deceptively simple: I write every day. The routine is key. If you wait for a perfectly free afternoon or a long, uninterrupted stretch of time, you might wait forever. For me, it’s at least 30 minutes, usually first thing in the morning, before the meetings and emails begin. Some days, that half hour feels like an eternity; on others, I look up an hour later surprised by my progress.
- ‘Researchers have a responsibility to publish’
- What is developmental editing?
- How to talk to students about their writing
Writing daily keeps me connected to my projects and stops them from becoming overwhelming. If you write consistently – even in small increments – the work gets done.
To maintain momentum, I leave breadcrumbs in the document before I stop: a note that says: “Next, write the results for section 2” or “Summarise this study’s methods.” That way, when I return, I don’t have to reread everything or waste precious energy figuring out what to do next.
Share the ‘ugly’ drafts
The need to polish drafts endlessly before letting anyone see them can be a trap. It slows down the process and makes the work more fragile. I used to think I was being respectful of my collaborators’ time, but the more perfect the draft looked, the more defensive I felt when someone suggested a change.
Instead, share relatively rough drafts. Sharing drafts keeps us flexible. It gives collaborators a voice in the creative process and space to express themselves, rather than being presented with a nearly finished product they can only tweak. It invites buy-in and lowers the emotional stakes, so collaborators feel comfortable suggesting changes. We should welcome critical input; failure is productive. A good “flop” can be the most direct route to clarity.
I even apply this approach to grant writing, sending out early versions of specific aims long before they feel finished.
Be generous with authorship
Authorship is one of the cheapest, most meaningful forms of currency in academia, and writing is a relationship-building practice. Generosity in acknowledgement builds trust. It builds networks. And it reflects the reality of modern research; very little of it is done alone. If someone contributes intellectually – even at the earliest stages of formulating the study question – I try to include them as an author, provided they review and approve the final manuscript.
When a project spins off into new analyses, I invite the original contributors to participate, too. They might not always choose to stay involved, but they deserve the opportunity. I have benefited immensely from this approach; people routinely invite me into new projects because they know I treat collaborators fairly.
My students learn this culture as well. They collaborate with one another, share authorship and build professional goodwill early in their careers.
Advocate for thoughtful peer review
Unfortunately, the peer review system is under enormous strain. Since the pandemic, submission volumes have surged and reviewer availability has dropped. Journals often struggle to find good matches, leading to reviews from people unfamiliar with the nuances of a subfield. As someone who works across veterinary medicine, human health, biology and data science, I experience this mismatch often.
Still, I believe in thoughtful peer review. A strong reviewer or collaborator can catch assumptions, question jargon and push for clearer explanations of ideas. We should all try to be that kind of reviewer when we can – and advocate for better systems that support careful, interdisciplinary evaluation.
Use AI with caution
Artificial intelligence can create an echo chamber; researchers write with AI, reviewers use AI to review and revisions are again made with AI. The diversity of academic voices collapses into an automated loop. Originality suffers. Accountability becomes murky.
I have never used AI to write anything that bears my name but I do sometimes use it to draft administrative emails or simplify long passages for public audiences. For academic writing, I avoid it – not because I reject the technology but because of the risks it introduces.
If you use AI, use it with full transparency, and verify everything it produces. But don’t let it replace the thinking or integrity that good writing requires.
Write because it advances your science
At its best, writing is joyful. Even on difficult days, I remind myself that writing is how my work enters the world. It’s how we invite others in. It’s how students learn, how collaborators connect, how knowledge evolves.
Good writing makes your science clearer, more reproducible, more impactful – and more human.
Write generously. Write consistently. Write with curiosity and humility. And most of all, write like the future of your research depends on it – because it does.
Audrey Ruple is a veterinarian and associate professor of quantitative epidemiology and the endowed Dorothy A. and Richard G. Metcalf professor of veterinary medical informatics at the Virginia-Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine of Virginia Tech. She is co-principal investigator and part of the executive leadership team of the Dog Aging Project.
If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.
comment