Hey Academics, Don’t Get Caught Up in the Drudgery

Academics face an interesting conundrum. With every paper, every research project, and every class you teach, you become more and more of an “expert” on a topic or discipline. If you are lucky, that expertise is tapped by many – students, organizations, peers.

But often, that tapping is done “for free” (and by free, I mean financially but also without care, respect, or thought on one’s time and life). I will always go to the ends of the earth to give all my energy to students and write letters of recommendation, etc. What gets my goat is when organizations solicit your ideas and knowledge without pay or acknowledgment.

Let’s first talk about reviewing journal articles. I must get at least ten emails daily asking me to peer-review manuscripts (many from predatory journals) without any immediate reward or incentive. To be clear, I am a big advocate of the peer-review process when it works and is robust – it is an essential part of the scientific process. That said, reviewing manuscripts takes a ton of time to do thoroughly and thoughtfully, and reviewing is always unpaid. Having no financial ties makes sense because once you start to monetize the process, the purpose of peer review is tainted. Serving as an editor of a journal is even worse. The honorarium payment does not nearly cover the time one must commit to ensuring the journal is stellar.

There is a multitude of reviewing requests—reviewing organizations’ reports, books for publishing houses, grant proposals submitted to funding organizations, and people’s accomplishments (tenure cases and other hires). Most of these requests to review are unpaid, and if they are paid, the payment is a very small token honorarium. What irks me is the timeframe expected to review – usually a week or two. Now I understand the need and importance of reviewing—as academics, our grants get funded, and manuscripts get published depending on the process. As academics, we honor, value, and understand the peer review process. The thing is, it has become a complete deluge of work outside the day-to-day activities that require our paid time, sometimes with little respect for how long things take to do at a level that is considered high-quality and with the workloads put upon us.

Even for organizations that pay for consultancy time – the amount paid does not match the work output. What was five days of paid consultancy takes more like ten days of one’s time. Often, the rate is relatively low (compared to the daily rate of your salary). And even when consultancies are over, one often doesn’t get the credit or acknowledgment on the final product. I have had some UN consultancies that were pathetically underpaid, way too much work, and with zero outcomes or credit. No fun...

Academics have a heavy and unique workload. For many working in research positions, you have to raise more than 50% of your salary by applying for grants (in public health schools, the amount a professor needs to raise can be as high as 80%!). Applying for grants through large university systems takes an insane amount of time, paperwork, emails, and thinking time. We have to manage teams, teach (one of the most important things we do), and serve on university and external disciplinary committees and advisory groups. We do research – which takes dedication and detail-oriented attention, particularly if you work internationally. I work about 100 hours a week. Probably a quarter of that is responding to the 300 emails that hit my inbox daily. Yup. No joke. All of this work is rewarding, and I love it. It is truly an honor to be in academia – being exploratory, describing the world and why it is the way it is, and learning from students. I really don’t have a boss. Total freedom. But the thing is, that freedom can be quickly squashed when one says “yes” to too much of this other stuff. I don’t think there is any other job or industry where you are not paid to your contributions to knowledge, or a job where you have to raise your salary. Can you imagine someone from the private sector giving their time and expertise without pay? A lawyer? A doctor?

So what to do? I admit I am in a privileged position – I am a full professor with tenure and can say no to most things I don’t want to do. I get serious joy out of saying no (which, by the way, is usually an unacceptable answer to the asker, resulting in five or six emails. Dude, no means no.). But it wasn’t always that way, and that is not the case for early career faculty and researchers. They have to do these unpaid, time-consuming tasks to show they are contributing to the world of knowledge and science, getting experience doing such things, and working towards promotion and tenure. But it is just too much.

My advice to my younger self? Be picky. Turning down one opportunity to review for Nature will not make or break your career. In fact, saying no may save it. Cherish your time and work only on the things you enjoy, and projects that move you towards tenure and promotion. Focus on doing fantastic work that contributes to the field. Serve on a few committees, but only ones that deeply interest you. Review 2-3 high-impact papers a year but not more (and definitely don’t support anything evenly seemingly predatory). Only be on grant proposal reviewing committees when the work is right in your wheelhouse; the process would help you become a better grant writer. Don’t review books – they are a waste of time, and the $200 in books they promise you nowhere near matches the time it takes to review them. It’s okay to turn things down. Be punk rock about it. Because when you come up for promotion and tenure, tenure committees will not count how many committees and articles you reviewed for journals. Instead, they will count the articles you wrote, how you contributed to them, and if you have influenced and informed your field in meaningful ways. This is what matters. So spend your energy doing great discovery research and cutting-edge science you care about. Don’t get caught up in the drudgery.

Barriers to a just, sustainable dietary transition

As world leaders meet to discuss grand global challenges, like climate change, over champagne cocktails this week here in NY, my friend and colleague, Chris Barrett and company asked to write about what I think are the main barriers or challenges to a just, sustainable dietary transition. Hmmmm. Where to even start?

The overarching major challenge is the inequities in the ability of many people to access (physically, economically, and socially) what is considered healthy, safe, and sustainable diets. Ironically, many of these same people are the food producers for the world. Accessing these diets and adapting will only get more complex if we stay on a business-as-usual course in the context of climate mitigation and adapting to climate-related extreme weather events.

There are many reasons for this lack of access that could cut across inefficiencies across food supply and environments and demands for specific kinds of food that put the world on a dangerous course. However, there are a few barriers that I would like to highlight. This summary focuses on food systems. However, many systems and sectors are responsible for meeting this goal, such as health, economics, education, and urban/rural development.

The first challenge is unrealistic goal and recommendation setting. Goals such as the Sustainable Development Goals provide a universal road map for how we want the world to be in seven years. Still, not every goal is relevant, meaningful, or a priority for every country. Recommendations for food system transformation are often made as generalities, not articulating who is responsible, for what, and by when. They also do not indicate how these recommendations can be translated into action ‘on the ground’ in the context of established interests and constrained budgets.

The second challenge is data gaps. High-quality analytical methods and tools to collate, curate, and analyze data across food systems; integration of data sets across disciplines; and new empirical research to solve the grand challenge of sustainable development (Fanzo et al., 2020). These data gaps bring about difficulties in navigating unintended consequences or trade-offs. While there are many gaps across food systems science, I focus on diets here.

We remain unclear on what people consume, why, and their barriers to accessing healthy, sustainable diets. Global dietary intake data that are nationally and subnationally representative remain sparse. Most countries do not consistently and systematically collect individual dietary intake data, and the existing data are often based on models relying on household expenditure and consumption survey data, food balance sheet data, or data from subpopulation nutrition surveys. Although these modeled estimates may give us a sense of dietary intake and patterns of consumption, they are an uncertain substitute for robust, representative individual dietary intake data reflecting recent consumption patterns at a national level, particularly in low- and middle-income contexts. Collecting robust longitudinal dietary data would allow researchers and policymakers to understand better how diets change over time and why.

The third challenge is the politics across food systems governance. As one example, the United Nations Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) and its stock take in July 2023 is not without uncertainties and controversies, with rumblings of it all being grandiose political wonk talk. With summits, there are always questions about impact. Will all stakeholders be included? Will the needs of the vulnerable and marginalized be prioritized? Will there be a sense of urgency to scale up investment? Will there be any accountability mechanism to track commitments and hold those to account who fall behind? If this is the mechanism for food systems change and for governments to engage, these questions are critical to understand and act on.

While addressing effective governance is a sticky issue, more and more, we as researchers must engage in this space if we are to see evidence come to bear in policy- and decision-making.