Finding Ground at the Science&ndash;Policy Interface: A Letter for the Next Generation of Land Systems Scholars

Karim, Paulina G.; Dubey, Pradeep K.

doi:10.5194/ls-2026-2

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/ls-2026-2

Preprints

16 Sep 2026

| 16 Sep 2026

Status: this preprint is currently under review for the journal LS.

Finding Ground at the Science–Policy Interface: A Letter for the Next Generation of Land Systems Scholars

Paulina G. Karim and Pradeep K. Dubey

Abstract. Land systems scholars increasingly work across disciplines, sectors, knowledge systems, and the science–policy–practice interface, creating both opportunities and challenges for those at early stages of their careers. Drawing on our experiences as Fellows in the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Nexus Assessment, we reflect on four dimensions that helped us grow: finding professional grounding, understanding the science–policy–practice interface, learning the relational side of science, and belonging to a continuing community of learning. Our experience highlights the importance of mentorship, peer learning, meaningful participation, and relationships in helping early-career scholars navigate complex sustainability challenges. We conclude with reflections for young scholars, senior researchers, and institutions on how supportive spaces can help cultivate the next generation of land systems scholars.

Received: 06 Sep 2026 – Discussion started: 16 Sep 2026

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Paulina G. Karim and Pradeep K. Dubey

Status: open (until 28 Oct 2026)

Post a comment Subscribe to comment alert

RC1:
'Comment on ls-2026-2', Laura Vang Rasmussen, 16 Sep 2026 reply
This is well-structured letter that clearly lays out what the IPBES Fellowship has taught two early-career scholars in relation to navigating the science-policy interface.
Some detailed comments below:
Could Section 1 include a few sentences on the followship programme such as the eligibility criteria, application process and why you applied?

Could the title be revised from “Finding Ground at the Science–Policy Interface: A Letter for the Next Generation of Land Systems Scholars” to “Finding Ground at the Science–Policy Interface: A Letter from Early-Career Land Systems Scholars” as it is currently somewhat unclear whether this letter is the ‘to’ or ‘from’ Early-Career scholars letter format!

’Hello dear reader’ is quite informal. I would suggest editing to something along the lines of ’Hello Land system science colleagues’, Dear Land system fellows’, or ‘Hello Land Systems scholars’ (to align with the title) or something along these lines instead.

GLP should be spelled out by first mentioning

The opening paragraph under section 2 reads a bit redundant. It could be shortened by directly linking it to the 4 challenges outlined in section 1: Current text: “For the benefit of our readers, we organise our reflections around four dimensions of growth: finding our professional grounding, understanding the science–policy–practice interface, learning the relational side of science, and belonging to a continuing community of learning.” Suggested edit: “In the following, we provide our reflections on how we have overcome the four challenges outlined above.”

Section 2.1. I would suggest moving the following paragraph to section 2.3 (as the third bullet point in section 1 talks about learning across knowledge systems): “Finding our grounding also meant learning across different knowledge systems. The assessment brought together 165 experts, including natural and social scientists and holders of Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK). Our engagement with the assessment's ILK liaison group was particularly transformative, exposing us to different worldviews and ways of knowing, and teaching us what it means to respect, listen, and co-create across knowledge systems.”

Section 2.2. I would recommend to change ‘Learning’ to ‘Navigating’ so it aligns with the bullet point in Section 1. It could just read as: Navigating the science–policy–practice interface. Overall, the piece would read more clearly if the language is better aligned between the bullet points in section 1, Figure 1, and the subheadings in section. Currently it is a bit hard to follow as ‘navigating’ is, for example, used for #1 in the bullet points, #2 in the figure, and not at all in the subheadings.

“Witnessing this process challenged some of our assumptions about expertise and reinforced the importance of humility, listening, and collaboration.” This is an interesting point but not entirely clear. Could you provide an example of how it challenged your assumptions about expertise?

The last paragraph in section 2 is a bit redundant. Consider deleting it (‘Together, these experiences have reinforced our belief that the future of land systems science needs scholars who can move across scales, sectors, disciplines, and knowledge systems—and communities willing to support them as they learn how.’)

Title to section 3: “What can we learn from this? A message to young scholars—and those who support them.“ I would suggest to make it more clear that this letter is directed to fellow young scholars. It could be as simple as adding ‘fellow’ before young

First sentence in section 3. I would suggest making it more explicit that this is about how EARLY CAREER scholars engage in the science-policy interface. As it stands, it reads a bit generic on how to generally strengthen science-policy engagement.

It is not entirely clear what ‘stronger and more deliberate support mechanisms are needed’ actually means. Could specific examples be provided?

Caption to figure 1. It is a bit confusing to have ‘finding our ground’ before the colon as I understood it as one of the four challenges you outline in Section 1. So I suggest to just delete it from the caption so it instead reads: “Figure 1. Challenges and pathways for growth as young land systems scholars”. And consider changing ‘young’ to early career.

Reply
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/ls-2026-2-RC1
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Paulina Karim, 30 Sep 2026 reply
  
  Dear Laura,
  Thank you so much for these thoughtful and very helpful comments! We especially appreciate your concrete suggestions for strengthening the coherence of the letter and making some of our key messages clearer.
  We also noticed a helpful convergence between your comments and those of the other reviewer, particularly around areas of repetition, clarity, and alignment across the sections and Figure 1. Seeing these points raised by both reviewers makes it clear where the letter genuinely needs strengthening, and we will revise accordingly.
  Thank you again for your careful reading and invaluable guidance!
  With much gratitude,
  
  Paulina and Pradeep
  
  Reply
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/ls-2026-2-AC2
RC2:
'Comment on ls-2026-2', A. Sofía Nanni, 21 Sep 2026 reply
This is a very nice and well-written letter reflecting on the IPBES Fellowship experience and drawing broader lessons from it about some of the challenges faced by LSS early-career scholars. I do have a few suggestions that I think could help strengthen the letter, particularly in relation to the word limit. The current version is considerably above the maximum length, and I think there is good room for shortening it by reducing some repetition and condensing some of the longer lists of examples. This would also make the main messages more direct. I have pointed out a few places where this could be done throughout the text and included a few other comments and suggestions below.
Note that the maximum length is 1500 words, and you are currently at 2197, so some trimming will be needed.

Starting with Hello, dear reader, feels a bit redundant, as it includes two salutations. Perhaps just the second one? Or “Dear members of the LSS community”?

Maybe this is just a personal preference, but I suggest limiting the use of bold to a minimum. For example, I don’t think it’s necessary to use bold for your names.

In line 8 of the first section, I don’t think the em dash (—) is needed; a comma would make the sentence flow more smoothly. More generally, I suggest limiting the use of em dashes throughout the text. I find that they tend to interrupt the flow of the ideas a little (e.g., sentence below, “Where does our expertise—and professional identity—actually lie?”. Usually, commas or simply rephrasing the sentence might make the text read more smoothly.

For the item “Finding professional grounding in an interdisciplinary field”, I’m not sure I fully understand the challenge you are trying to highlight here. Is it about navigating between science, policy, and practice, or rather about finding one’s professional place across these different sectors? Perhaps this could be clarified a little?

As not everyone might be familiarized with the IPBES fellowship scheme, perhaps you can describe it briefly in one or two sentences?

By the end of section one, I suggest deleting “finding our own place at the science–policy–practice interface”, as it becomes repetitive with the challenges highlighted above.

Figure 1. In the Challenges circle, “Who am I?” feels a bit too abstract and does not fully capture the first challenge. Perhaps consider rephrasing it?

I see some circularity between the first two challenges in Section 1 and the first two lessons in Section 2, as they are framed in very similar terms. Perhaps the lessons could be more oriented towards what you learned or gained from the Fellowship. For example, in the first case, the main lesson seems to be that working across disciplines can itself be a strength. Perhaps the lesson could be reframed into something along the lines of “interdisciplinarity as our professional grounding”? Likewise, for the second challenge, I think the lesson is more about gaining a better understanding of the science–policy interface by seeing how it works in practice, and this could also be reflected in how you name it.

Going back to the figure, it might be more accurate to use “lessons” rather than “solutions”, as this is how you refer to them in the text.

Regarding the word limit and for more clarity, I see some room for merging paragraphs 2 to 4 of Section 2, as they are a bit redundant in highlighting the importance of bringing local realities and knowledge into broader science–policy processes.

There may also be some room for reduction in Section 3 by shortening some of the lists of examples and grouping them under broader terms. For example, “listening, giving and receiving feedback, and writing collectively” could perhaps be grouped as “collaborative skills”; “working across languages and cultures” as “cross-cultural collaboration”; workshops, training, chapter work, and exchanges as “collaborative learning spaces” or “peer-learning opportunities”; and the ideas in the last paragraph around asking questions, making mistakes, and acknowledging what we do not know could be summarised as “safe learning spaces.”

Similarly, the first lines of Section 2.4 could be shortened by structuring the sentence more directly. For example: “Perhaps the Fellowship’s greatest gift was that the community continued beyond the assessment.” There is also room for shortening these last two paragraphs by keeping only the main message, which is clear, and rephrasing or removing some of the lists (e.g., “relationships, networks, mentorship, and opportunities” or “scales, sectors, disciplines, and knowledge systems”).

In this part of Section 3, “For institutions and platforms, stronger and more deliberate support mechanisms are needed” feels a bit too broad. Are you referring to specific training programs and mechanisms for involving ECs?

Again, in this section too there are several places here where you could trim the text by reducing or removing some of the list-like writing. Here too, the paragraph about IPBES being more than a training program feels a bit repetitive, as this idea has already been mentioned in other parts of the letter.

Reply
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/ls-2026-2-RC2
- AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Paulina Karim, 30 Sep 2026 reply
  
  Dear Sofía,
  Thank you so much for these invaluable and thoughtful comments! We are especially grateful for your concrete suggestions on where and how the text can be condensed while keeping its key messages. Reading through your comments, we can now see much more clearly where some of the repetition and list-like writing occurs, and your suggestions give us a very practical way forward in bringing the letter within the word limit. We will revise accordingly.
  Thank you again for taking the time to read our letter so carefully and for helping us make it sharper and more focused.
  With much gratitude,
  
  Paulina and Pradeep
  
  Reply
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/ls-2026-2-AC1

Paulina G. Karim and Pradeep K. Dubey

Metrics will be available soon.

Latest update: 14 Oct 2026

Short summary

Early-career scholars are increasingly asked to work across complex environmental challenges, yet finding where we belong and how we can contribute is not always easy. Drawing on our experience in the IPBES Nexus Assessment, we reflect on what helped us grow. We find that mentorship, peer learning, meaningful participation, and supportive relationships are as important as technical expertise, and call for more spaces where young scholars can learn, contribute, and grow together.