Academia's Endless Outcry: Same Story, Different Year

Note: If you are considering pursuing a PhD, currently navigating a PhD program, or working as a Post-Doctoral researcher, I encourage you to approach the following with an open perspective. While this article reflects some of the challenges often highlighted in the media about early career researchers, it does not define the whole story. These are observations of the broader narrative —not necessarily my personal views - rathe a reaction to those. 

In fact, working with PhD students has been one of the most fulfilling parts of my career, and my own PhD journey was an enriching experience so enriching that I would gladly embark on it again without hesitation - but I acknowledge that everyone's PhD experience is incredible unique and different. The text below is sarcastic at times, my favorite type of humor.         

Having spent some time in academia, I have noticed a pattern: every few months, someone discovers that academia is broken. What a surprise (and a way better headline than saying we would all try to make it a bit better)!

Nature, Science, or any other outlet posts about shocking statistics of PhDs leaving academia, the need for better metrics when assessing academics, and how we should focus on teaching and impact rather than just publications.

The "Crisis" in Academia: A Never-Ending Story of Recycled Headlines

Media headlines love to declare academia is in crisis, yet the issues—like precarious jobs and outdated metrics—are as old as academia itself. Take these recent headlines from Nature: "More than 40% of postdocs leave academia, study reveals" (2025) not only highlights that around 60% of postdocs stay in academia but also shows a trend we already knew - publishing papers helps to get a job in academia! Among those PostDocs who stay in academia having highly cited papers to secure faculty positions helps. Groundbreaking.

A similar study titled "Nearly 50% of researchers quit science within a decade, huge study reveals" (2024). The study reveals that nearly 50% of researchers leave science within a decade of their first publication, with women being more likely to quit than men. I would tell you I am surprised, but then I would have to add this study to my ever-growing collection of "shocking revelations about academia that we all knew about" folder. But let’s break it down: nearly 50% of researchers leaving the “academic industry” simply reflects a shift to the many other industries out there. Academia is one (niche) sector; the rest of the professional world is vast. Exiting academia does not mean abandoning research or teaching. Many former academics transition into roles like data scientist, UX researcher, project manager, or other positions where their skills remain relevant and valued. Movement between industries is not failure (or laziness) — it is natural progression.

Is Academia really in crisis? And could there be other reasons?

Is a large chunk of academics leaving academia actually an issue? And if so, for whom? Does it mean they can never come back? The times are over when one follows a career with one industry for 50+ years like my parents' generation. Let alone with one company.

So also in 2025 - breaking news: Water is wet! Captain Obvious published these mentioned statistics when I started my PhD in 2016, and probably way before that. There were even calls for the "collapse of academia" back then already, and repeatedly academia was "in a crisis" (2019, here, and here). Even in 2010 already The Economist titled "The disposable academic - Why doing a PhD is often a waste of time" highlighted how PhDs are overproduced, poorly paid, and often stuck in precarious jobs with limited career prospects, leaving many disillusioned.?

Ok, so we learned the only thing that has changed is how frequently we talk about them. It is like academia's version of a greatest hits album - the same songs, just remastered for a new audience (Taylor Swift already knew this was a great idea).

The Real Reasons People Leave: Beyond Natural Progression

It’s easy to explain the exodus from academia as a natural career evolution—after all, industries outside academia offer better pay, greater stability, and often a more manageable work-life balance. But to stop there would miss a bigger issue: people aren’t just leaving because other industries are enticing. Many are leaving because the academic system itself drives them out. Poor metrics (see The Guardian, 2015), misaligned incentives, and ineffective management (see Heller 2021 - not me but an author I share a last name with) create an environment where even the most passionate researchers struggle to thrive.

The "Better Metrics" Discussion: When Will We Learn (And When Will We Act)?

Then there is the metrics discussion. In marketing and consumer behaviour, most academics will tell you that four journals matter:

Journal of Marketing, Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Marketing Research, and Marketing Science.

Each of these journals has 6 issues per year (4 for Marketing Science) which roughly means there are about 160 articles published per year across these journals. That's correct, 160 articles per year across all possible marketing academics (that is PhDs, PostDocs, Assistant Professors, Associate Professors, and Full Professors) in the world.

It becomes quickly evident that there is not enough room for everyone. In addition, a wide number of "Journal Lists" exist that try to rank journals based on metrics such as the Journal Impact Factor or the Article Influence Score, or based on votings from Business School Deans (e.g. ABDC list in Australia or the VHB-JOURQUAL in Germany), or lists that are compiled in other ways based on history or important scholars from the field deciding which journals are on the list.

While this article is not about journal rankings per se - but rather the idea that is being promoted more and more often these days to move away from those - I provide a short overview of common rankings that exist in marketing (some are wider lists encompassing also management and business journals) beyond the traditional "Top 4" marketing journals. Beyond these, some schools have varying rules, some use one of the lists below, some have their own, and others have chosen to only look at impact factors (or other metrics) of journals, independent of whether they are on a list or not (the later allows for more interdisciplinary work also being valued).

Marketing & Consumer Behavior Journal Lists

This section is deep-diving into marketing & consumer behaviour lists, skip if you are not in this domain.

Journal rankings like the FT50, UT Dallas Top 5, Academic Journal Guide (AJG), ABDC Journal Quality List, and MKT 15 are key tools used to evaluate research quality and productivity in business and marketing academia. Each has its methodology, focus, and audience. Here’s a quick overview of the major rankings.

• The FT50 is a list of 50 influential journals selected by the Financial Times, emphasizing practical impact and a global reputation for business schools and management research.
• The UT Dallas Top 5 highlights faculty research productivity by counting publications in five elite marketing (The Top 4 plus Journal of Management) and business journals over a five-year period.
• The AJG (ABS list) ranks over 1,700 journals, assigning ratings from 1 (lowest) to 4 (world-leading)*, based on peer review, citation metrics, and editorial standards.
• The ABDC (Australian Business Deans Council) List ranks journals into A*, A, B, and C tiers*, focusing on regional influence and global citation impact.
• The MKT 15 is a targeted list of 15 elite marketing journals, balancing inclusivity and focus on marketing-specific research quality.

While journal lists aim to help researchers navigate publication expectations, the reality is that they create intense competition for a limited number of publication slots. For example, the Top 4 marketing journals collectively publish only about 160 articles annually. This scarcity—combined with the proliferation of lists like the FT50, AJG, and ABDC—means there simply is not enough room for everyone.

Ambition Meets Reality: Initiatives That Fall Short

Remember when Utrecht University made headlines in 2018 for moving away from traditional metrics? Everyone applauded, articles were written, and conferences were held. Fast forward to 2025, and we are still having the exact same conversation. It is like watching a TV show where the characters keep forgetting the plot from the previous episode.

The Dutch "Recognition & Rewards" initiative aimed to value researchers beyond their publication count. Fantastic idea! But here is what happened in a simplified forn: We kept all the old requirements and simply added new ones.

Now, besides publishing in top journals, you also need to be a social media influencer, TED talk speaker, and probably a part-time superhero saving the world in your spare time, that is the time between having served as an editor for a special issue, the innovative course you re-designed, the assessment or program committee you served on, all of it preferably in your first PostDoc year that was financed via an NWO or European Commission grant that you wrote in your evenings.

"Room for Everyone's Talent": A Cozy Tale of Academic Reality

In a touching display of participation-trophy academia, Dutch institutions have graced us with "Room for Everyone's Talent". Much like those "everyone's a winner" sports days in high school, this visionary masterpiece suggests there is room for all in the academic playground. If only they had checked the actual playground size first.

Although the "Rooms for Everyone's Talent" paper sets out ambitious goals—such as diversifying career paths and emphasizing quality over quantity—the on-the-ground reality looks quite different. I wrote parts of this article at home and parts at the university, where I’ve learned to type in gloves in our so-called “energy-efficient” 17-degree office at the School of Business and Economics. We champion sustainability, but our first cost-cutting measure in politically uncertain times is to switch off the heaters in January. There’s space for you here, too—just dress warmly.

Back to "Room For Everyone's Talent" - The position paper's five pillars of academic excellence paint a picture of boundless opportunity and recognition. But perhaps they should have titled it "Room for Everyone's Talent*" with the asterisk noting "physical space not included." Our hallways have become something of an academic version of musical chairs, with student patrols monitoring who sits where and when - presumably to optimize our "collaborative workspace environment."

Room for everyone's talent and Rewards and Recognition is a wonderful concept. Our promotion criteria or hiring criteria have not changed a bit since I started at Maastricht University in 2019. There is a gap between theory and practice (a great start for paper).

The R&R plan 2022-2026, supposedly a document that outlines with key action points when and how changes will be implemented to the flawed academic system in the Netherlands, does not mention any date (or year) except for the 2022-2026 on the title page. One of its guiding principles— “Changing culture is difficult and takes a long time” —seems to justify the absence of clear deadlines. As a result, the document stands out as a masterpiece of vagueness and unaccountability.

The Ultimate Irony: New Packaging, Same Product

Despite all the talk about change, all the websites and (virtual) festivals that have been launched for Rewards and recognition, academia in 2025 still primarily cares about one thing: how many papers you have published and where. It is like a restaurant claiming to have completely reinvented its menu, but when you visit, they are still serving the same burger - just with a fancier name and twice the price.

I feel this is not particularly bad in itself, if that is the game we play, so be it, but at least try not to wrap it in shiny gift paper but be transparent about it, so entering scholars have an idea of what they are getting into. Further, highlights that promotion pathways still differ widely across universities and even across departments of the same faculty. Newcomers are often highly dependent on full professors, despite the often so-praised "flat hierarchies" in Dutch academia, the opposite holds when promoting young academics.

Time for Real Change (or at least honest pathways to a professorship)

If academia genuinely wants to evolve, we need more than just fancy new frameworks and buzzwords. We need:

1. Actual accountability when universities claim to adopt new metrics. These metrics should truly make way for diverse academic profiles, rather than adding more checkboxes to tick.
2. A realistic workload that does not require time-travel abilities to complete
3. A genuine shift away from using publication counts as the academic equivalent of Instagram likes

There are noteworthy examples in the Netherlands that are exceptions to the norm, although these are still rare. I applaud their "Everyone Professor" initiative that reduces hierarchies and allows any assistant, associate, or full professor to use the title of professor, wear the gown, and promote (not just supervise) PhD candidates. Or the earlier mention of Utrecht University scrapping the impact factor as a hiring criterion.

However, these are notable exceptions. For most, the focus is still on publication output and even non-objective factors like how many years you are in the current position (independent of what you may have produced in that time) and what a department thinks of you. For a group of smart and analytically savvy academics that favour bureaucracy in many instances, promotion processes are still far from standardized, recognized, or rewardful.

Until this happens, I will keep collecting these headlines that academia is broken. Maybe by 2030, I will have enough for a meta-analysis of how many times we have discovered that academia needs fixing. That would make a great publication in an A+ ranked journal (we have to discuss which list we use for classifying the journals first) - the irony would be perfect.

And yes, I am aware of the irony that I am writing this while being part of the system. But at least I have not created a conceptual framework for it. Yet.