{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021469609918355004, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0042334442092530995, 'mean_word_length': 6.023354564755839, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Nonacademic Niches for Professional Ecologists

Cassey and Blackburn’s article on the trials and tribulations of scientific publication (“Publication and Rejection among Successful Ecologists,” BioScience 54: 234–239) provides much-needed encouragement for early career biologists who are as yet unfamiliar with the sometimes intimidating and discouraging aspects of the peer-review process. The authors’ data showing that even leading scientists in their field must endure a high probability of rejection for the first submissions of manuscripts (and that even people at the top of their field still can generate unpublishable papers) will come as heartening news to young scientists preparing their first manuscripts for submission to peerreviewed scientific journals. As Cassey and Blackburn take pains to point out, young scientists should not be deterred or discouraged by initial rejection of submitted manuscripts, but set their minds to following the “three R’s” rule of scientific publication: Review, Revise, and Resubmit. I must take exception, however, to the authors’ implicit and explicit characterization of ecologists who have left academia as “unsuccessful ecologists” and “ecologists whose careers have failed” (pp. 237, 238). I recognize and acknowledge the truth—but not the validity—of the authors’ postulate that ecologists working outside of academia (in industry, government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector generally) rarely, if ever, achieve the high levels of peer recognition and renown often accorded to scientists of other disciplines working in nonacademic professional environments and sectors. The research of academic ecologists is—as was that of the authors themselves—frequently predicated on research-funding policies and programs fostered and created in large part through the efforts of ecologist and biologist colleagues laboring within the labyrinthine bureaucratic landscapes of governmental agencies, congressional offices, nongovernmental organizations, and charitable organizations. I believe it is essential for young scientists and ecologists to recognize a successful professional life as an ecologist “outside of academia” as a potentially viable, worthwhile, and productive career option. The tremendous importance and manifest benefits of seeding and embedding scientists into nonacademic professional niches within the government and policy communities is clearly recognized by the American Institute of Biological Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, along with many of their constituent scientific and professional societies, as a key factor in ensuring the continued availability of funding and political support for producing high-quality scientists and highvalue basic and applied scientific research. I heartily encourage the authors to look beyond the physical and intellectual walls of the academic cloister and consider the possibilities of a professional career as a nonacademic professional ecologist or environmental scientist. Early career ecologists—and the authors themselves—should be encouraged to learn that it is in fact possible (in the United States, at least) to continue to publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals while working professionally outside of academia.