Whew! This paper has been a long time coming! Through a series of unfortunate events, it took almost two years for this to go from submitted to published.
This paper covers the current state of human energetics research within anthropology, discusses a couple of new theories in the field, and then provides a bit of a road map for future work.
I wrote this manuscript over the summer of 2018, which was likely one of the best summers I had. I conducted preliminary field work in Finland during May, and then June-August was devoted to writing and weightlifting…though not always in the order. You can read about the weightlifting here.
IT WAS AMAZING! It was one of those times where I felt like I really had the time to think, read, and write without interruption. I was able to truly engage with this manuscript and enjoy the process. It reminded me of writing my dissertation – the last time I was able to focus on just one thing.
However, the smooth sailing ended there. This is a review article, so when I went to submit it, I selected “Review” under article category. What I didn’t know was that meant Book Review and not Review Article, stupid error on my part. I didn’t realize the problem until Adam Van Arsdale asked me how the article was coming…almost six months after I submitted it. We quickly figured out the issue and I resubmitted the article under the proper category. Three months after submission, I still hadn’t heard anything and decided to contact Adam. Turns out there was some glitch and the submission never actually made it to the editor – no idea why. And, so, I submitted it a third time!
At this point, I was convinced this was a cursed article never to be reviewed much less accepted. However, in early April the reviews finally came in, but I had just accepted a new position at Notre Dame and was dealing with selling one house, buying another, and moving from New York to Indiana. I requested and was granted an extension on the reviews, and I resubmitted in September, and the paper was accepted in October. Then from October through to do was the page proofs and waiting.
I must say, though, the reviewer comments were some of the best and most constructive I have ever had. It was how the review process should work, everything the reviewers said was incredibly helpful, insightful, and supportive. Their comments pushed me to think about things in ways I had not before, and I am incredibly grateful to them. I also took this to heart and make sure that I take a similar approach when reviewing articles.
It was a long road to publication, but I am proud of this one.
During crises, people are desperate for information, and this frenzied desire to know more leaves us more open to encountering and accepting misinformation as true (see, for example, 
“I realized that I profited from studying a group of people, pursing my own interests, my own questions, using my own methods, and (without intending to do so) I was perpetuating a colonial way of doing science that was not there to serve the populations that I studied. And it was a shock to me.”
Back in early March I was 
Many years ago (when I was a graduate student), I played a super minor role in some research looking at the developmental timing of gait in children. This was done in 
As many of you know I expend a lot of time doing and thinking about science communication and outreach. I founded a Science on Tap series in Grand Rapids, MI when I had my first faculty position at Grand Valley State University. I remember the first event – only 12 people showed up. It took time, but the audience grew with every event. My final Science on Tap before moving to a new position in Albany, NY, drew a crowd of over 300 people. We had to turn people away at the door…for a science event…in a 
Hey, all,