Dr Daniela Schnitzler

Still reading. Still thinking. Still human.

Reclaiming Academic Priorities

May 2024

I originally gave this presentation at the British Education Research Association (BERA) Early Career Researcher Conference in March, 2026. For this conference, the call for abstracts had been about academic decision making, so I thought this was a good fit (turns out I was right!). Here is that abstract:

Travelling the paths of scholarship as an early career researcher can feel daunting when faced with many of the uncomfortable realities of the academic landscape. Indeed, the dark “publish or perish” cloud hangs over this metaphorical scene, exerting its pressure in ways that can steer us toward decisions that are misaligned with our own moral and intellectual compasses. Indeed, rarely are we encouraged to construct and maintain an ethical framework for our scholarly lives, for example, by defining our own criteria for success. Instead, research culture tacitly expects us to adopt traditional benchmarks of success and progress, largely driven by quantitive metrics of publication (Hatch and Curry, 2020). 

In response to this pressure, I have reflected on what success in my academic career means to me, leading to the practical choice of publishing my research exclusively in open-access, non-profit venues, and thereby rejecting the traditional “publish or perish” narrative. Although the dominant dissemination pathway encourages researchers to prioritise prestige journals as a route to visibility and career advancement, I deliberately chose an alternative trajectory. 

My rationale for this decision emerges from a reassessment of what I wish my academic career to represent. Success, for me, includes having a meaningful impact on my students, seeking environments that challenge me intellectually, and pursuing research that genuinely excites me - an orientation aligned with calls for slower, values-driven scholarship (Mountz et al., 2015). In contrast, accumulating a long list of publications simply for the sake of productivity stands in direct opposition to these aspirations. 

Choosing diamond open-access venues reflects both an ethical stance and an intellectual commitment. I view this decision as a deliberate withdrawal from a publishing ecosystem that extracts profit from academic labour while reinforcing narrow, quantitative evaluation practices in favour of high- volume output rather than rigorous knowledge production (Beigel et al., 2025). Peripheral to this positioning is my rejection of the adoption of GenAI tools simply to increase productivity, which contributes to the hyperactivity of publication (Guest et al., 2025). The coherence of this decision lies in its alignment with my broader scholarly identity and its integration into a research philosophy grounded in integrity, rigour, and intellectual curiosity. 

While I certainly do not stand alone in this vanguard of reassessing academic priorities, the persistent concern to my position centres around the consequences to my future career. However, while the shared dissatisfaction with the status quo once began as a gentle earthquake, it is now increasingly reshaping the academic landscape; for example, through the adoption of narrative CVs, which describe impact and outcomes, rather than a long list of publications. Similarly, reforms that seek to measure impact and rigour are emerging, giving the scientific community alternative methods of research evaluation (Beigel et al., 2025). 

Ultimately, this decision has empowered me to engage in scholarly work that aligns with my professional values and personal definitions of success. By critically examining and justifying my choice of dissemination strategy, I hope to contribute to a wider conversation about reclaiming agency in academic decision-making.