Papa PhD Gold: Rethinking Selling and Storytelling in ScienceWith Anna Clemens

Welcome to this new episode of Papa PhD Gold! Here’s the big takeaway from this excerpt from my conversation with scientific writing expert Anna Clemens: Selling isn’t a dirty word in academia – it’s all about communicating your research in a way that connects with people, even if they aren’t specialists in your field. If you approach editors, funders, or stakeholders with clarity, enthusiasm, and a strong story, you’re not being sleazy, you’re making your hard work accessible and impactful. So, embrace storytelling, invite others to the party, and remember: refining your message through feedback is how you truly shine.

  David and Anna discuss practical strategies for pitching research effectively, tackling the stigma around self-promotion, and learning to think from the reader’s perspective—whether that’s an editor, peer reviewer, or even a potential funder. They also touch on the importance of feedback, the challenge of letting go of your favorite sentences, and how emotional reactions can stand in the way of clearer, more impactful science communication. If you’re ready to reframe how you talk about your research and embrace the skills that get your work noticed, this episode is for you. Key take-home messages:

• Selling Isn’t a Dirty Word: Selling your research is simply about communicating its value. Think of it as presenting your findings in a way that editors and broader audiences can truly see their significance, not exaggerating, but clarifying impact.

• Tell the Right Story: Good storytelling (not hype!) helps you realize and highlight the true significance of your work. Pitch at the right level – especially for general editors who may not be deep in your specialty – and make your message accessible.

• Embrace Feedback (and Ditch Your Darlings): Don’t get attached to specific sentences or ideas. Use peer and non-expert feedback to clarify your writing before peer review; sometimes the most clever lines aren’t the clearest ones!

If you’re looking to sharpen your academic communication and get your research noticed – for publication, funding, or public engagement – this episode is a must-listen.  This episode’s links:

• Anna Clemens | Website
• The Researchers’ Writing | Podcast

Episode Transcript

David Mendes:

One of the things that you mentioned that was interesting and that I think people should take note is when you are communicating with this general editor, you are not communicating with an academic. It’s someone who is working for a business. You said something that I think often is not a bad word. But anyway, it can be almost a bad word. Sell your article. You said that. And I do think people, you know, if you’re listening and this kind of give you chills hearing this, try to accept it in a way and say, in this specific framework of communicating with this person who is kind of a gatekeeper of. Does this article go to the next step or not? I need to. If it’s not you, if you’re not able to have this conversation in a less academic and more selly marketing way, maybe someone in your lab will. But I think it’s important to develop a relationship with these people where you can have a relaxed conversation and just talk. Like kind of popularizing what the article is about. This is kind of what I got from what you said, and it’s the first time I hear about it. And that’s why I kind of put a note to talk about it.

Anna Clemens:

Yeah, I love that it clicks up on that because you were right. Like, selling is the dirty word in academia. And if it makes you cringe, I mean, running my own business, I had to think about selling. I had to really examine my relationship with selling because of that. Because I come from academia as well. I have been there. I know how, like, selling and capitalism, things like that are frowned upon. And, And I mean, you know, I do agree, I do agree about. I hate bad salesmanship. But selling can also be good. Selling is not inherently bad. That’s what I want. Say if you think about, you have a problem, right? And you. Let’s say you go to the pharmacy of a skin problem and you tell them about your problem and they give you a really good product that solves your skin, I don’t know, eczema or whatever. You’re like super happy that it will help your problem and you walk away, you use the product, your skin goes better. You’re like, wow. I mean, this is selling. Selling isn’t only sleazy and bad. Telling us, basically. And I mean, I don’t talk about planning magic, actually. I talk way more about storytelling. But lots of people don’t like storytelling because they think it’s too much, it’s too salesy. And because storytelling is like, oh, it means like, oh, you’re like, exaggerating your findings, like, overstating them. And I feel like this is not the fault of selling and this is not the fault of storytelling, but this is the fault of using it the wrong way, you know, using the tool the wrong way. Like there is a way of using the tool the right way. And this is. We really try to think about where your readers at. Like, well, I always say it’s like put yourself in your reader’s shoes, think about where they’re at. Like the general editors who say they’re not an academic or they probably did like a PhD postdoc, but they’re not in academia anymore. Look up like the general editor you’re submitting to. Look up what field they’re covering and just get it like going to like think about, okay, how many research topics do they need to be able to judge? Right. Like they won’t have in depth knowledge, the same as your peer reviewers or as your like direct colleague. So just thinking about that and trying to like pitch it at a level that they will be able to understand and significant and actually often it is that we ourselves as the author haven’t really thought about the significance, you know, not in that specific way. I mean, I see this happen all the time. That thinking about what story you are telling helps you as the author to actually realize what potential impact your research could have. Because we often don’t. Like we are. Especially if you’re a PhD student, you probably struggle with this a little more because you’re so close to your research and you haven’t maybe haven’t read all the literature surrounding, you know, that maybe your PI has or someone who has been working on that topic for a longer time. I suggest just re examine, just challenge. If you feel like selling is a bad thing, just think about it a little bit. Try to challenge that thought a little bit.

 

David Mendes:

Yeah, Jen says, and it’s interesting. Selling is like inviting people to your party. If you don’t, nobody will come. And it’s true. You just, if you do it according to your values, it’ll be fine. It’s just that actually in that space, the academic space, some things have a bad ring to them. It’s like one thing that I’ve tried to find a new expression for is personal branding. I think this is really interesting and I think just picking up on what you said, doing this work of doing a little bit of storytelling and selling of the story of your research will also for sure have impacts on talking with stakeholders who might be funding you later on, et cetera, et cetera. So I think there’s only positives to that. Now, the other thing I picked up on that I found really, really interesting, it has to do with the peer reviewers. And you said, you know, it’s on you, to be clear. And I do remember also that with that reaction of, oh, they didn’t understand what, you know, they, you know, they didn’t understand what I wrote. There’s some frustration there that I remember seeing people getting. And I wonder, you know, I feel that getting frustrated is not the useful reaction. So like you said, these comments that might sound like they don’t know enough on the topic, they don’t get it, is kind of stopping you from actually looking at what you wrote and making it better. I feel that’s what you were saying. I was just wanting to make a point of reinforcing it because emotions can get in the way of you getting a better product at the end.

Anna Clemens:

You’re right. I mean, it really is like that. There’s actually, in general, there is a saying that is called kill your darling. Sometimes we are very in love with our own. Like, we have like a sentence or tone of phrase we really like. It happens to me all the time when I write, I’m like, I love this sentence. When you reread it or when you get feedback and you feel like, okay, it doesn’t go. It’s always the ones you like the most that unfortunately they don’t help. You know, they don’t help you get the flow you want. They don’t help you. I mean, they may be breaking the flow. They may make it unclear, or there’s like a better way of cutting it. Like, yeah, don’t be too attached to what you have written and do get feedback. I mean, it is really a process and it is a skill. So it’s a skill you need to do. Like, to develop a skill, you first need to know how to do it and then you need to practice it. Right? Like, even if someone tells you this is how you do it, I always think it’s better if you have someone who tells you how to do it, because then you kind of have a shortcut. But then once you know kind of the system or the strategy is, then practice it and get feedback. Like, have people have other people read it. Like, have your lab mate read it. I mean, your supervisor, whoever, like, read it and ask them, okay, is this clear? Like, did you follow this? Or is there any confusion? I mean, I always think it’s good to have someone read it who doesn’t know so much about your studies. You have a bit of an outside perspective, and you don’t need to give them your whole article. Just if you have points where you aren’t sure or something, you can kind of prevent getting that feedback from the peer reviewers if you do that.

Thank you, Anna Clemens!

If you enjoyed this conversation with Anna, let her know by clicking the link below and leaving her a message on Linkedin:

Send Anna Clemens a thank you message on Linkedin!

Click here to share your key take-away from this interview with David!

Leave a review on Podchaser ! Support the show !   You might also like the following episodes:

Papa PhD Gold – The Benefits of Science Communication With Elodie Chabrol

Papa PhD Gold – Four Practices You Must Learn From Gig Workers With Sue Ashford

Jessica Schleider  – Dealing With Mental Unrest in Graduate School

Melissa Gismondi – The Power of Graduate Internships