To examine the world is to reveal divergences, a range of potential polities, societies, and spaces, other to the conventional defined space of the research paper on the page. Yet it is possible to push at the edges of a research paper, and kick back against the standardization of scholarship. For variety and a breadth of scholarship is a symbolic and important characteristic of geography as a discipline. A present tragedy of publishing in the academic world is that, as international scholars, we are all increasingly pressured to produce research papers that meet certain externally imposed standards. This monitoring of academia through corporate/capitalist frameworks, can lead to the publishing of 'safe pieces', in place of texts that move disciplinary debates radically forward.The Reflections section of this journal was set up with this exact issue in mind. In order to produce lively, critical, inventive interjections on current societal issues, and to open-out what is considered geographical endeavor through creative practice, and in essence, to subvert the research paper itself. It is dedicated to publishing Reflections on issues relevant to, and in, contemporary geographies, offering a space for empirically grounded as well as theoretically informed research. Pushing at the margins of the discipline is its aim, and its revolutionary agenda is to argue that the traditional craft of essay writing perhaps needs to be returned to the forefront of academia; essays that take a walk beyond the norm, other to the standardized research paper format of present (Forsdick 2005).It seems that nowadays more regularly, rather than writing what we want to write as scholars we are instead -through an increasingly crude quantitative measurement -writing what we think we have to write. Yet, we suggest here, that research papers which subvert the traditional way-of-doingthings, have precisely the potential to become polemic, discipline changing, impactful pieces. One of the tragedies related to peer reviewed research papers is that, after publication, we may be left with a sense that our work has in some way been highjacked and tampered with, and the finished article does not accurately reflect what we wanted to say. Revision rounds, serving multiple purposes, can lead to a diluted version of the issue with which we sought to engage. Furthermore, as we look around the publishing landscape -as authors, editors, and reviewers -uneasy feelings arise, about enabling a narrowing, a cleansing, a streamlining of our research in print to fit the current corporate/capitalist agenda. In our view, this devalues much of the labor that goes into the research paper itself, before and beyond its processing in a journal, the time that goes into the gathering of data and analysis, and the placing of each word, each sentence, and each paragraph on the page.These contradictions loom larger, and can be contextualized with reference to a longstanding and ever growing body of literature on neo-liberalization within academia, and as such, academic pu...