Last year was a year of change for me, personally. My family relocated to a new country at the start of the year. We went from “should we?” to “should we not?” as I meticulously worked on a very detailed pro and con list to decide whether the move would be worth the risk. Would we hate it? Or love it?

Once the move was made, there was no turning back (at least for a few years!). It was just a question of adapting — and adapting fast. I feel like academia has followed a similar trajectory. Discussions around AI began with “should we, shouldn’t we?”, but we have now reached a point of acceptance. From here on, it’s a question of adapting and adapting fast.

With this year now drawing to a close, I often find myself in a reflective mood and at the same time, I feel the pressure for that final push to meet deadlines and achieve the goals I set at the start of the year. It is a time of both rest and action, and I am sure each of us faces the same tension in some capacity. As we prepare for a new year, I am sure you have been in many meetings where the idea of growth has dominated the conversation. However, in the publishing landscape growth is inherently polarized, with key tensions that must be carefully managed to ensure long-term success. How do we increase publication outputs and yet maintain the quality of those outputs? How can we make research accessible and still maintain profitability? The drive for growth can feel relentless.

cutout shape of a human head held in a pair of hands. Inside the head are matches at varying levels of burntness

This relentless push for growth can lead to burnout among authors, editors, and reviewers, while also placing undue pressure on organizations to maintain high levels of output without the infrastructure or support systems needed to sustain that growth over the long term.

The first step in managing polarities is recognizing them and talking about them, instead of ignoring or pretending that they don’t exist. Are we ready to shift from an “either/or mindset” to a “both/and mindset,” where it’s not about taking sides, but balancing and leveraging the strengths of both? How can we build teams that are able to recognize and work with opposing forces rather than trying to “solve” what is considered to be a “problem”?

Navigating polarities in academia

I’ve been working closely with diverse stakeholders at Editage as we launch new author-focused services. Polarity has played a key role in these conversations. These are my top 5 takeaways:

  1. Acknowledge and consider the polarities as we make decisions, and most importantly, set up a flexible decision-making framework. This is important; for instance, during periods of rapid growth, a publisher might prioritize speed and scalability. However, when evaluating the impact of innovation, quality and sustainability might take precedence. It is important to be able to pivot based on the situation. Are we consciously thinking about and adapting our decision- making models to pivot fast?
  2. Balance short-term and long-term goals. While it’s important to meet deadlines, achieve growth targets, and stay relevant in today’s competitive landscape, it is equally important to focus on long-term sustainability, research integrity, and accessibility. Are we focusing on both immediate outcomes, such as publishing timely research, and future objectives, such as building a strong research reputation and establishing good ethical practices?
  3. Define growth milestones clearly to ensure these are manageable and allow for incremental progress. Is there a larger vision that allows for gradual expansion instead of an unsustainable push for short-term goal achievement?
  4. 4.Invest adequately in infrastructure and resources. As we prepare for growth, are we accounting for streamlining workflows, allocating resources to the right places, and focusing on the right success metrics?
  5. Focus on the organizational goals AND on community engagement. The concept of community itself is polarized. Communities are no longer monolithic; they are fragmented in terms of access to resources, infrastructure, and varying degrees of inclusion or exclusion. This poses a challenge to organizations: How do you engage meaningfully with the community when the “community” itself cannot be considered a single or whole entity? How can one recognize and address the diversity within communities and create tailored initiatives that resonate with different subgroups?

How can the different stakeholders in academia, whether authors, editors, reviewers, and publishers view these polarities as opportunities for innovation and not conflict?

I believe that navigating these polarities with consciousness can help make the academic ecosystem more resilient and sustainable. As we bring in the new year, can we all commit to sustainable growth without burnout in the respective roles we play?

Roohi Ghosh

Roohi Ghosh

Roohi Ghosh is the ambassador for researcher success at Cactus Communications (CACTUS). She is passionate about advocating for researchers and amplifying their voices on a global stage.

Discussion