Contribution short abstract:

Tired of jumping through bureaucratic hoops and facing endless journal rejections, I challenge the academic hierarchy that prioritizes prestige over lived experience. Let’s rethink what truly defines scholarly value—innovation, authenticity, and field-based insight—not just journal rankings.

Contribution long abstract:

As early-career researchers, we often find ourselves navigating the labyrinth of academic publishing, where gatekeepers, both visible and invisible, scrutinize our work through the lens of institutional prestige. My own experiences with editorial and desk rejections highlight a deep tension between innovation and conformity. Despite my research aligning well with thematic expectations, it often fails to meet the rigid standards of prestigious journals. This raises the question: why are ideas grounded in lived experience, particularly those emerging from fieldwork, marginalized in favor of theories and concepts that may be removed from the reality on the ground? How did pioneers like Marcel Mauss, Victor Turner, and Johannes Fabian and more to name challenge dominant norms and gain recognition, while newer voices continue to struggle against the weight of academic tradition?

In the Indian academic landscape, the UGC's rigid categorization of journals has exacerbated this issue, placing an undue emphasis on the prestige of publication venues. The value of extensive fieldwork, rich with lived experience, is often sidelined in favor of theoretical rigor that may be less grounded in reality. This bureaucratic approach to journal rankings, determined by administrative bodies with little to no academic field experience, undermines the diversity and richness of scholarly contributions. This discussion challenges the academic status quo, advocating for a more inclusive and flexible framework that values authenticity, innovation, and lived experience as key indicators of scholarly merit—no matter the prestige of the journal.