Academic writing myths that are holding you back

Academic writing can be intimidating, especially for students and early-career academics navigating a world of rigid structures, high expectations, and scholarly conventions. What often makes it even more daunting, however, are the many myths surrounding how academic writing “should” be done.

These misconceptions can cause unnecessary stress, stifle creativity, and hinder a writer’s ability to express complex ideas clearly.

In this article, we dispel some of the most common and persistent myths about academic writing and replace them with practical truths that can lead to a better writing experience.

Myth: Good writers produce perfect drafts instantly

Many people believe that experienced writers sit down and effortlessly produce a great draft on their first attempt. In reality, even skilled academic writers go through several drafts before arriving at a decent version. The process often involves brainstorming, outlining, writing, rewriting, editing, and proofreading.

Understanding this can reduce the pressure to write a “perfect” draft from the start and encourages a process-oriented approach in which revision is not seen as a weakness, but as an essential part of the drafting process.

Myth: Only direct quotes require citations

A common misconception among academics is that citations are only necessary when direct quotes are used. This is far from true. Any time you paraphrase, summarise, or refer to someone else’s research, ideas, and data, you must give credit with proper citation. If you don’t, it’s plagiarism, even if the words are your own.

Accurate citation shows respect for the original authors, demonstrates your professionalism, lends credibility to your work, and allows readers to follow up on your sources for further research. It is also important that you familiarise yourself with the required citation style (e.g. APA, MLA, Chicago).

Myth: Academic writing must be complex

There is a widespread belief that academic texts must be full of jargon and dense in order to sound scholarly or intelligent. Even if there is very specific terminology in certain subject areas, academic texts should first and foremost be clear, readable, and precise. Unnecessarily complicated words, overly complex sentences, and convoluted structures often have a negative impact on the content rather than enhancing it.

Effective academic writing manages to convey even the most difficult and complex ideas in an understandable way. If your readers have to read a sentence several times to understand it, that’s a sign that it needs to be simplified. But remember that a clearer message doesn’t mean you are dumbing it down.

Myth: First-person pronouns are inappropriate

Traditionally, many academic institutions discouraged the use of first-person pronouns such as “I” and “we” on the grounds that they might compromise objectivity. However, this view has changed in many areas.

Writing in the first person is now accepted in disciplines such as education, social sciences, and even in some areas of science and humanities, especially when discussing research methods, presenting arguments, or reflecting on results.

The use of “I” in such contexts can clarify who is responsible for the perspective or analysis presented. However, it is advisable to consult your specific academic guidelines, as some fields are still more conservative than others in this regard.

Myth: Longer papers show greater expertise

Long academic papers are often mistaken for insightful or substantial ones. But verbosity is not synonymous with depth. Rather, the ability to convey complex ideas succinctly is a sign of good critical thinking. Readers—especially professors and reviewers—appreciate clear, coherent arguments that do not contain filler words and redundancies.

Sticking to the required word count or page range while focusing on relevance and depth will always be more effective than padding your work with tangents or repetitive content. Quality over quantity needs to be the top priority.

Myth: Thesis statement must be one sentence

Concise thesis statements are encouraged. However, there is no absolute rule that they must be just one sentence. Depending on the complexity of the topic, a multi-sentence thesis may better clarify the writer’s argument and outline the scope of the paper.

The most important thing is that the thesis clearly expresses the main idea of the paper and gives the reader a roadmap of what to expect. Focusing only on the number of sentences can lead to vague or oversimplified thesis statements that fail to capture the depth and nuance of the paper’s arguments.

Myth: Feedback is only for weak writers

Another misconception is that only those who struggle with writing need feedback. The truth is that every writer, regardless of their level of experience, benefits from external input. A second pair of eyes can spot unclear arguments, inconsistencies, or awkward phrasing that the writer may have overlooked.

Seeking feedback is not a weakness, but an important part of the writing process. Whether from professors, professional editors, or writing centers, constructive criticism helps improve the quality of academic work and contributes to the development of the writer’s skills.

Myth: Academic writing lacks creativity

Academic writing is often seen as mechanical and rigid, but in reality it demands a high level of creativity. The ability to craft compelling arguments, draw connections between ideas, and offer original interpretations need innovative thinking.

Creativity in academic writing manifests in how ideas are structured, supported, and communicated. Writers who think outside the box while maintaining academic rigor often produce the most impactful work.

Myth: Writing is a linear process

Writing does not follow a clean, linear trajectory: introduction, main part, conclusion, finished. However, writing rarely proceeds in this way. It is common to revise the introduction after you have written the main body, or to restructure whole sections as the arguments develop.

This recursive nature is not a flaw but a feature of good writing. Accepting that writing is fluid and iterative helps alleviate the pressure to “get it right” on the first go and encourages greater flexibility and critical reflection.

This iterative nature is not a flaw, but a feature of good writing. Accepting that writing is fluid reduces the pressure to get it right the first time and allows for more flexibility and critical reflection.

Myth: Passive voice should always be avoided

Although the active voice is often recommended in various writing contexts, the passive voice is not bad per se. In some cases, it is even preferable—e.g. when the doer of the action is irrelevant or unknown or should not be emphasised.

In scientific texts, for example, the passive voice is often used to focus on the research process rather than the researcher. The key is to know when and why it’s best to use passive constructions. Finding a balance between passive and active voice depending on the context can increase the effectiveness of your text.

Myth: Conclusions are just summaries

It is a common practice to regard the conclusion as a place where what has already been said is rehashed. While it is useful to sum up the main points, a strong conclusion goes beyond repetition.

The conclusion should summarise your arguments, emphasise their importance, and leave the reader with a final thought to reflect on. Good conclusions reinforce the purpose of your work and provide a clear endpoint, but they also open the door to new insights or future research opportunities.

Myth: You can’t edit your own work

It is clear that professional editing can be a very valuable support, but to believe that you cannot edit your texts yourself is untrue and disempowering. With the right strategies, mindset, and tools, writers can become effective self-editors. In fact, self-editing is not just a “nice-to-have” skill for academic writers, but an essential skill that can be learned.

Self-editing with InstaText

As mentioned, the right tools can help you edit your work and improve its quality in terms of language accuracy, clarity and readability. One such tool is InstaText, an editing assistant developed by academics for academics.

Using advanced language technologies, but not generative AI, InstaText improves readability, clarity, style, grammar, and more—without sacrificing your authorship and originality to ensure your work meets rigorous academic guidelines.

According to our users, InstaText makes the writing process faster and more efficient, increases acceptance rates, and shortens the time to publication.

In case you want to edit your paper yourself, we’ve put together a guide to self-editing. Check it out below. And if you’re not a user yet, you can try InstaText for free and see how it can improve your academic writing.

“What resonates with me the most is InstaText’s simplicity and flexibility. In the realm of writing, where complexity can often hinder creativity, this tool is a breath of fresh air. It aligns perfectly with my workflow, enhancing my content while giving me the freedom to express myself naturally.

Being a writer and translator, real-time feedback is a boon. InstaText’s ability to identify nuances and offer suggestions in real time has revolutionized my editing process. It’s like having a brilliant co-writer who polishes the text while respecting the writer’s voice. As I write, I can see my content improving and evolving with every keystroke.”

— Dr. Doaa Elalfy, Academic Researcher

“I have been using InstaText since October 2021, primarily for academic writing. I switched from another software that did not help me write more like a native English speaker – it merely corrected typos, grammar, and punctuation. InstaText, on the other hand, makes your text engaging to read, coherent, and professional-looking.

Further, I feel that paragraphs corrected by InstaText look akin to what I see in top marketing and social psychology journals. It is a huge help for an academic writer because rather than focusing on making the text appealing, you can simply focus on what you want to say and build a logically unfolding narration.”

— Dr. Michał Folwarczny, Postdoctoral researcher