21 Sep 2026
| 21 Sep 2026
Status: this preprint is currently under review for the journal LS.
Beyond the Tail, Staying with the System
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Land Systems.
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.
Thanks for developing this lovely response and analogy! Below I provide some general and specific suggestions that can hopefully both strengthen the logic and foundations of the arguments, and also better position this manuscript to launch this article type for Land Systems as a new journal.
General Comments:
Section. Instead of this being a “section” it is formally an “article type”. I would avoid using the term section throughout.
Setting the stage. In the introduction, I’d love to see more stage setting regarding the article type and the reason it is needed in this journal. For instance: Why is this type of communication between early career (and presumably, mid or late career) scholars important? What is challenging about being a scholar in Land Systems, an interdisciplinary field? What barriers do young scholars face, and how are those barriers heterogeneous across scholars with different attributes? What even constitutes an “early career” scholar? Within GLP, what percentage of members are early career, and what are their attributes?
Dialogue. I think the idea of dialogue is wonderful. But I also wonder if dialogue is truly possible if we have just a pair of letters. Do we expect the exchange to continue beyond this? Are the authors hoping to use the “discussion” feature of the journal to enable others to join the conversation? Are there ways to facilitate a more dynamic exchange? I don’t have answers here, but I would think about how the goals or parameters of this article type align with the practicalities of publishing.
Centering Land. I appreciate the conversation about interdisciplinarity. At the same time, it feels a bit generic in the sense that environmental problems are often systems problems. I encourage the authors to more clearly center land in their writing throughout but especially from lines 56-72.
Interdisciplinary versus collaboration across disciplines. The authors state that “Collaboration models … may have found a way to see more of the elephant by structuring dialogue between scholars who each hold a different part, rather than expecting any one of them to see the whole thing alone.” I definitely agree! I also hope that the authors can draw on scholarship that has really considered what it means to be interdisciplinary, and the various way in which that might happen (e.g., collaboration models versus interdisciplinary training), such as the following (these are examples – don’t feel pressed to include them if they don’t fit – there might be better support that I’m not aware of):
Khagram, Sanjeev, et al. "Thinking about knowing: conceptual foundations for interdisciplinary environmental research." Environmental Conservation 37.4 (2010): 388-397.
Lach, Denise. "Challenges of interdisciplinary research: Reconciling qualitative and quantitative methods for understanding human–landscape systems." Environmental management 53.1 (2014): 88-93.
Eigenbrode, Sanford D., et al. "Employing philosophical dialogue in collaborative science." BioScience 57.1 (2007): 55-64.
Personal Experience. If possible, I would love to see more specific examples from the authors’ own careers and experiences, which I feel can move this type of communication from something quite formal / academic to a more personal dialogue. For instance, can the authors provide support for “While we have seen the value of taking part in larger interdisciplinary networks in our own experience…”. What has discussing a problem, or working together on a small piece, looked like in your own careers? This need not be extensive, but a couple of well-placed experiences could make the writing feel more personal.
Conclusion. I wonder if the authors could say more about what / how these letters might be. What types of topics are ripe for conversation? What types of scholars – early career and not – would we like to hear from? Any ideas about how folks can be supported in developing their ideas? Can they pair (early career with not early career) to submit a pair of manuscripts together? Since this is the first such article in the first issue, feel free to provide concrete suggestions that will motivate interest and diverse / exciting / provocative writing.
Specific Comments:
Line 16. maybe be clear that the “Letters to Young Scientists” was in Science magazine?
Line 20-28. What is the clear gap?
Line 36. I’d love to see a reference for the origins of this parable – India is a country but a very diverse one, can the authors get a bit more specific about where this parable came from? For instance, does it occur in Buddhist or Hindu texts? Is there evidence for the claim that it is “usually” told as a story about limits of partial knowledge?
Line 48. As a counterpoint to this, there are other fields that take a systems approach to thinking about land – including Geography – so I wonder if this pretty broad claim about why the field exists is supported. Maybe this final sentence in the paragraph is not needed – I think the rest of the argument speaks for itself.
Fig. 1. Cute illustration! I wonder if the “it is” statements could be better connected to the Land Systems field – for instance “it is intensification!” “it is smallholders!”
Lines 91-92. Consider broadening to graduate students or students or early career scholars rather than just PhD students? Unless the authors think that this particular communication should target PhD students.
Lines 103-104. Consider “research group” rather than “lab” to broaden beyond the sciences.