iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Academic flying is not established as a universal requirement for career success. A 2019 study of 705 University of British Columbia travellers found no relationship between air-travel emissions and its measure of research productivity adjusted for academic age and discipline. That finding challenges the idea that more flying automatically means more academic success—but it does not show that every trip is useless or that flying has no value in every career.
What the evidence says about flying and academic success
Wynes, Donner, Tannason, and Nabors examined travel records for 705 University of British Columbia travellers and compared air-travel emissions with publicly available academic measures. They reported no relationship between emissions and hIa, an h-index adjusted for academic age and discipline. The authors summarized the result this way: “We found no relationship between air travel emissions and metrics of academic productivity including hIa (h-index adjusted for academic age and discipline).” Read the 2019 study in the Journal of Cleaner Production.
This is evidence against a simple rule that academics must fly frequently to be productive. It is not proof that flying never helps. The study was observational, covered one Canadian university, and measured productivity with a particular bibliometric indicator—not every dimension of professional success.
What the study did—and did not—measure
An h-index reflects publication and citation patterns; the adjusted measure accounts for academic age and discipline. It does not directly measure networking, visibility, collaborations, teaching, service, influence, or whether a particular conference presentation led to an opportunity. The study therefore cannot settle every question about the value of academic travel.
#1 Best Overall
The authors also reported that salary and air-travel emissions were associated in their sample, even after controlling for seniority. That is an association, not evidence that flying caused higher salaries. Senior academics may travel more, and other differences between people or roles could contribute to the relationship.
The abstract also describes 165 researchers classified as “Green” or “Not-green” and reports no significant difference in total air-travel emissions between those groups. This is a study-specific comparison, not a general estimate of how environmentally minded academics travel.
Rank #2
Why academics can feel they have to fly
The phrase “fly or die” echoes “publish or perish”: it describes a perceived professional obligation, not a demonstrated law of career advancement. A 2021 literature review distinguishes several reasons academics may believe travel is necessary. Read the review of academic travel obligations and alternatives.
| Reason for travel | What it can involve | Question to ask |
|---|---|---|
| Hard or site-bound need | Research that depends on being in a particular place or conducting work that cannot be done remotely. | Can the work be done another way, or is physical presence essential? |
| Formal role | Representing a professional organization or fulfilling another assigned responsibility. | Is attendance part of the role, and could someone else or a remote format fulfill it? |
| Networking, visibility, and belonging | Meeting peers, being seen in a field, building relationships, and feeling part of an academic community. | What specific relationship or opportunity is expected, and could it be developed through another format? |
These reasons are not interchangeable. A trip required for fieldwork has a different purpose from one taken mainly to maintain visibility. The literature discusses networking and belonging as perceived reasons to travel; the UBC study did not quantify their effects.
Rank #3
Does flying less carry a career penalty?
The available evidence does not establish a general career penalty for academics who fly less. The UBC finding offers no observed relationship between emissions and adjusted h-index in that sample, but it cannot determine whether a specific person missed a valuable collaboration or opportunity by staying home. Nor does it show that reducing travel improves a career.
Access also matters. Opportunities to travel—and barriers to doing so—are uneven. A norm that treats frequent travel as proof of commitment can disadvantage people who cannot travel as readily, while also making a contested practice seem compulsory. A later review describes academic air travel as a debate about career beliefs, academic identity and mobility, environmental concerns, and alternatives, rather than supplying a separate quantitative estimate of career effects. Read the later review of academic air travel.
How to decide whether a trip is worth taking
There is no universal scoring formula in the reviewed sources. A practical decision starts with the trip’s purpose and whether in-person attendance is necessary for that purpose.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →- Name the intended outcome. For example, completing site-bound research, carrying out a formal responsibility, presenting work, or building a particular professional connection.
- Separate necessity from expectation. Ask whether physical presence is essential, formally required, or mainly assumed to improve visibility or belonging.
- Consider who can access the opportunity. Check whether travel is realistically available to the people expected to participate and whether the norm excludes others.
- Compare alternatives. Virtual meetings and reorganized academic practices may serve some purposes, but the reviewed literature does not establish that they can replace every kind of fieldwork or in-person exchange.
- Weigh the expected benefit against the cost. Consider the trip’s environmental impact alongside its concrete purpose, rather than treating travel itself as evidence of career value.
What “fly or die” gets wrong
The phrase turns a complicated choice into a blanket career rule. The strongest directly relevant study found no relationship between academic air-travel emissions and adjusted h-index among travellers at one university; it did not test every possible benefit of travel or prove a universal causal effect. The evidence supports questioning the assumption that academics must fly to succeed, while leaving room for trips that have a clear, specific purpose.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
