Misc

When academics leave academia, the reasons mirror most career transitions: the misalignment between personal values and organizational culture becomes too great. But academia has a particular way of manifesting this misalignment. It promises freedom and autonomy, the ability to pursue questions that matter to you, while simultaneously creating conditions where that freedom feels increasingly illusory. I'm not talking about workload modelling or administrative creep, though those matter. I'm talking about something more fundamental: academia's unique relationship with control, or rather, the illusion of it. The Predictable and Unpredictable in Academic Life Here's what we can predict in academia: the pressure to publish will continue to exist. The volume of output will continue to grow at a seemingly impossible rate. Quality will remain variable as a result. What we cannot predict, and what many struggle to accept, is nearly everything else. Which journals will accept yo...

The systems that are meant to support research are far from perfect and I'm not just talking about the speed of peer review or a lack of data sharing . By this, I mean how we ensure the accountability and integrity of researchers themselves.   We are currently developing a Lab Values document to agree on what is important to us as a group. This will help define the ways we want to work (see here for a great example). I expect that much of this will align with the values of our institution.  But what about when those values are ignored or deliberately misconstrued?  It is safer to assume that this will happen eventually. Sad to say I've observed many issues closer to home and further away. From individuals being abusive or misogynistic to grandiose authorship claims and data fabrication on an industrial scale.  Such behaviors are likely to hurt someone's career and there are, of course, well-publicized cases where individuals have faced serious consequences. How...

I tweeted about a dilemma earlier this week. It's a familiar tale.  In the last few months, I've reviewed 3 papers for the same journal. I am also a co-author of a paper that is under review at the same outlet.   To be completely transparent, our paper has been reviewed as far as I can tell, but it has now spent more time on a desk than with reviewers. A colleague emailed politely asking if the paper would be sent out for review in Feb after it sat for a month with no activity. I emailed again asking for an update on our paper earlier this month. The journal office claims to forward emails on, but we receive zero response from any editor.  What do you do? The problem with not reviewing is that I am not helping authors who deserve to have their paper reviewed in a timely fashion. On a side note, the very same journal also has a habit of giving reviewers a set number of days to complete a review and then cancelling the review before the due date.  And then they wo...

Having navigated the academic publishing system as an author, reviewer and occasional editor, I can confirm that there are inconsistencies at almost every turn * . From the variable quality of reviews to the procedures in place during article or chapter production, even within the same journal, authors and reviewers can have very different experiences. Previously, I was led to believe that the role of an editor was clear and consistent. Editors read manuscripts, find reviewers, and make key decisions based on reviews and their own expertise. In addition, editors can help guide authors towards what they feel are the most important points that should be addressed following review. This is particularly important when it comes to clarifying the direction of a paper when reviewers express conflicting views. However, a number of editors and associate editors, who are sometimes paid by journals, don't always act in a way that is helpful or fair to authors and reviewers. In many instan...