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

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 Other days I’m convinced no one will care and it’s already outdated.”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:

I’m hosting a Professional Development session about Responsible AI policies in the classroom on 29th April 2026, and would love it if you could join me in a conversation about how to navigate the evolving AI landscape. We’ll briefly cover AI detection, what other educators are doing, and media literacy in the age of AI. I’ve recently become a GPTZero Ambassador (for those who don’t know, GPTZero is an AI writing detector), so all attendees of this webinar will receive 1 semester of GPTZero Premium for free! Join here: 29 April 2026, 10 am BST https://meet.google.com/qnd-kdtg-epf

You’re not alone. Scroll through Reddit and you’ll see thousands of researchers quietly burning out while telling themselves they’re just “lazy” or “not smart enough.” The reality: you’re running marathon effort on sprint expectations. That’s not a personal flaw. That’s a broken culture. In my 15 years in academia and 70+ papers, the one thing I wish I knew earlier is this: impostor syndrome rarely disappears, but you can stop it from driving the car. Here’s what I recommend: 1. Set a minimum viable day: 30–60 minutes of deep work on your most important task (methods, results, or revision). Once that’s done, you’ve already had a “successful” day. Everything else is a bonus. 2. Keep an “evidence file”: every acceptance, kind email, positive comment from a supervisor, or good result goes in one document. On bad days, don’t trust your feelings—read your evidence. 3. Reduce hidden expectations: write down what you think your supervisor, examiners, or PI expect from you this month. Then reality-check it with them in one short meeting or email. Most of the time, you’re carrying expectations no one actually asked for. 4. Protect one non‑negotiable boundary: sleep, a weekly day off, or exercise. Burning two extra hours at night is not what gets papers published; consistent, clear-headed work does. If this resonates, don’t try to “fix your whole life” this week. Pick one of these changes, apply it for seven days, and see how your stress shifts. 😊 What’s one small promise you’ll make to yourself this week so impostor syndrome doesn’t run the show? Drop your answer below 👇