The daily, weekly and yearly routine of an academic, and other writers.

When reviewing, a change from early in my career is that I look for whether a paper is/can be 'good enough', not perfect.

Yet that perfectionist mindset seems to underpin almost every recent review I've got as an author 🫤

Makes me wonder if we're relying too much on junior scholars...?

Here's my high-quality video interview with the folks at "Big Think." It does a nice job of capturing major themes in
"The Friction Project," my book with Huggy Rao. Great production team and editing. Filmed in a mansion they rented in Hillsborough, CA.

bigthink.com/series/the-b...

This sounds a bit like the Hungry Judge Effect - which I think means we’re fine to submit at the end of the year as long as the editors are well fed :-) en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungry_...

A hypothesis: Submitting a paper for publication around this time of year is a bad idea because editors are in "clear my desk" mode and are more likely to give you a rushed/unfavourable decision.

Yes? No? Kind of?

Got some bad news today (paper rejection after mammoth 1st revision, boo!). But thankfully still have good news from last week to pick me up: my research leave application for next year has been approved, and I'll be based at Emlyon Business School for the second half of 2024! 🥳🇪🇺🇫🇷

Over the years I’ve enjoyed HBS Prof Author Brooks column in the Atlantic. He has a new book out and this review of it is hilarious. A proper piss take. I laughed aloud this morning. It cheered me up. I needed it. Oh the irony. www.newyorker.com/magazine/202...