[MUSIC PLAYING] Reading a paper, often like systematic reviews or meta analysis, and looking at the key limitations in the field, the things that are needed to move the field forward, I think that's kind of great inspiration. I also really like reading papers in completely different fields because they might have a similar question in a very different way. So it gives you a very kind of different perspective on maybe a similar question. So I will change really the field to have a fresh perspective. Findings in my own work that were kind of completely unexpected-- and that's the next question we want to address and try to figure out, why did we find this? Can we replicate it in another data set? Discussion with colleagues, students, collaborators-- so just making sure that we keep those conversations going and have a bit of brainstorming, sometimes seeing new funded projects or grants or news about here's a new study investigating this and-- wow, yeah, that's a great idea. Can we maybe do something similar or adapt it in our own research? And then I'd say, finally, when I run-- run to the shower, sometimes it's just like poof. And I'll make sure that I keep a mental note to write it down. I love writing papers. That's probably one of the part-- telling the story. So I start always with a research question and a hypothesis, these kind of last bit of the introduction, being very clear conceptually about what is it that you want to understand, what is it that you're investigating. And have those clear research questions and hypotheses laid out. And then I will work my way up and work my way down. So work my way up in the introduction is thinking, OK, what are the paragraphs that I need to introduce for this question or concept? So it's really thinking in the introduction, you are the conceptual level. You get to that final paragraph, where you've really nailed down the research question. And each and every paragraph has been used to really prepare the reader for what's going to come. So I think writing a paper is very much about putting yourself in the shoes of the reader, taking them by the hand, almost going down in a cave that is dark. And you want to make sure that they don't get lost in a wrong path. So don't write anything that might put them off track. And then the key thing, which I repeat to all my students, is be consistent throughout the paper. So if you start with a conceptual level and you're very clear, then you can move to the method. And I usually split my screen in two, have that last paragraph of the introduction where I have my research question hypothesis and then think, OK, what is it in the method that I need to have in the same order? So if I've got a certain paragraph in the introduction, then in the method, the measure will follow that. And then coming to the discussion, I think that's probably the most important part of any paper, that first paragraph of the discussion. And again, I have my screen split in two. And I look at the last part of the introduction and make sure that I can relay the summary of the paper. What were our intentions? What did we find? And that's basically the plan for the discussion. I mean, I'd say it happens. Just do something else. Go for a run. Work on your teaching. Answer emails. Just do something else. I will come back. So don't dwell on it. If it's not the right time, then it's not the right time. And just accept it. Yeah, I think you need to be very kind of brutal in the sense that you need to block days or half days where you're not on email, where you're not meeting people. And if people ask you, can you meet, you say no. And on those days, you might quickly check your email in the morning to see if there's no emergency. And then you switch it off. So you just really identify those days in the week. And keep those slots free for reading papers, writing your grant, writing papers. And that's really the key thing. And then try to really group all your meetings in specific days. Those are quite brutal. My kid says, oh, it's Tuesday-- Tuesday meeting today. I'm like, yes. So it's kind of been very kind of organised with that. And just, yeah, keep those because no one will keep those slots free. You need to prescribe them to yourself. I would say favour quality over quantity. Yes, your publication are your currency. But I wouldn't say it's the number. It's really the quality of the publication. 10 years down the line, you won't feel proud about what you've written. You want to be to feel that, yes, this was a great paper. It took me a long time. But it was definitely worth it. Open science-- I think it's definitely getting more and more important. And I think there are lots of advantages. Like, to pre-register, for example, your work and your study, you have to do the work anyway to write the paper. The advantage with pre-registration-- well, it's a label of quality. But it also comes as a protecting shield when you are trying to publish your work because a reviewer might say, have you done this? Can you please do this. And you're like, well, no, sorry, we preregistered everything. And that's why I think it's really important to start thinking first about, what are the questions, what are the hypotheses, and how can we address those? And be very thorough. Make sure you send your plan to co-author. And then pre-register the work. And you feel like this is my recipe. And I will have to follow it. The work, you have to do it anyway. So it's not wasted. And I would say always put yourself in the shoes of the reader. It's really about telling a story. And you want to make sure that they can follow you and make their work as easy as possible. Be patient. You need to be patient. It takes time. There are no shortcuts to great work. So it's better to wait another month, two months, sometimes a year if you see that something is not going as you thought it would and just taking the time and sharing the work with others. And get feedback, as many feedback, from different people. And I would say the last two things is make sure there's a clear agreement from the onset in terms of authorship and byline. That was the first piece of advice I got from my PhD advisor when I started on the first day. And they told me, this is how it's going to be. And these are the rules. And make sure that you do that with all the work that you try to publish. And finally, develop a thick skin. Rejection is part of academia. And how you handle it can make the difference between if you're going to make it or not. You can be bright. You can be passionate and motivated. You need to be resilient. I don't know. I wouldn't really change anything. I tend to look forward. And I don't really have regret, to be honest. I've made mistakes. And I think that's part of the journey. And I just say, just be passionate. Just be enthusiastic. Be resilient. But yeah, I wouldn't go back and say to Stephane, hey, you should do this or that. I feel that I've made mistakes. But basically, they've made me who I am and the research I am. So I don't really look back.