Prestigious research grants do not fund 70% to 98% of applicants, despite outstanding proposals. Similarly, high-impact scholarly journals reject 65% to 95% of submitted manuscripts.

However, success in academic environments requires research funding and a substantial number of publications in high-impact journals. Considering that scholars invest four to six years of graduate education to become eligible for increasingly scarce academic positions, the challenge of grant funding and the difficulty in publishing papers in high-impact journals make it a high-stakes endeavor. With such slight odds, nearly every scholar experiences either fear of failure or failure in academia.

The Evaluation Factor

Interpreting academic failure involves two competing factors. The first factor is something over which most scholars have minimal control: how scholars are evaluated. The number of publications in high-impact journals is the most significant predictor for securing academic jobs, tenure, and promotion at research-intensive universities. The drive to produce a large volume of "groundbreaking," "innovative," or "exciting" scholarship often leads to poor research design, including "p-hacking" (manipulation of data), file-drawer problems, publication bias, and irreproducible work. Consequently, the metrics push even the most exceptional scholars struggle to thrive. Professional evaluation has become a significant source of stress that cannot be ignored.

The intense emphasis on production skews the perception of young scholars that production equals worth. The phenomenon aligns with Goodhart's law, which states that when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.

Although it is unwise to completely ignore the evaluative aspects of being a productive scholar, an essential aspect of sustainability, mental health, and the ability to manage inevitable failures is to define success as more than simple productivity.

The Second Factor for Sustainability

The second major factor is something that is completely under the control of the scholar: defining success as more than just productivity. This factor involves considering the professional goals, purposes, and meaning of being an academic. Defining the second factor is different for everyone, but is important for managing failure and rejection.

For example, continuous professional improvement, influencing the professional field, and producing work that is useful or excellent are second-factor goals. Because these goals are in place, a manuscript rejection or unfunded grant proposal is not solely a lost opportunity to gain an effective evaluation. The second-factor goals provide opportunities to improve the quality of work by teaching important methods of improvement, learning and improving methods of communication, and increasing usefulness. In this fashion, rejection can be a gift or opportunity to improve and meet second-factor goals. This second factor is a major factor in sustainable academic success.

An academic career focused on the intrinsic and personal second-factor purposes can appear to be a luxury for those with security and tenure. Yet, focusing entirely on formal evaluations, measurables, and metrics that are often out of the control of the scholar can lead to joyless, poor quality, and discouraging work.

It is possible that people who take shortcuts and work solely to meet evaluation metrics may win more awards, publish first, and achieve success. However, it is only coincidental that their work is of high quality, makes a professional difference, and leads to useful outcomes.

Comparison is a thief of joy. Be proud of the highest quality work possible, regardless of rejection or evaluation. In these cases, there is no failure.

Many students and young colleagues say that they put their heart and soul into a paper or proposal, only to have it rejected. They are not chasing evaluation, but they have tied their worth as a person to the acceptance or rejection of their scholarly work. Such a mindset creates professional burnout as well as intense feelings of failure.

Being Sustainable and Managing Fear

Effective, sustainable, and joyful academic scholarship has three major components: process, priority, and perspective.

Process involves developing a mechanism that the scholar consistently applies to convert ideas into research methods and scholarly products. It involves disciplines such as writing, researching, collaborating with others, and developing the habit of producing work. Consistent habits are far more productive than waiting for the mood to strike. Motivation is inconsistent, but habits and processes are sustainable.

Priority involves having a clear set of goals and purposes for life and work. It means understanding exactly which activities are the most important to you. This could include family time, sleep, exercise, parenting, hobbies, and other activities. Even within research, priorities are critical to helping academics organize which projects are most important right now and which can wait until later. Without a sense of priority, academics have a tendency to move from project to project without a mindful approach. This leads to wasteful time and a feeling that they may not be doing the most important thing.

Perspective allows academics to understand and internalize that rejection happens to everyone and there is no need to catastrophize about it. Trust the process and allocate time based on priorities.

Conclusion

Failure and the fear of failure are pervasive among all academics. Even experienced scholars who have had multiple papers rejected may question whether the field has surpassed them, whether they have lost their ability to be a scholar, or whether they were ever a competent scholar to begin with. The excessive reliance on metrics in the formal evaluation process at universities only exacerbates such fears.

However, cultivating a sense of process, priorities, and perspective can enhance the sustainability and mental well-being of academics. Scholars are fortunate to be in a profession that offers a great deal of control and freedom. Surrendering that control and freedom to metrics and evaluation results in frustration, burnout, fear, and a desire to exit the profession.