It has been an extraordinary 12 months, but one which has brought the ordinary (whatever that means?) into greater focus. Living conditions, income and job security, work‐life balance, parenting and caring responsibilities, community‐researcher relations, teaching spaces and safety, personal relationships, staff‐student solidarities, funding opportunities, fieldwork plans and so much more have been tipped on their head.

Much of the critical emerging analysis reminds us that things were not hunky dory before the pandemic. In the UK and across many other contexts, communities had been ravaged by austerity. Public services were hanging by a thread, institutions heavily neoliberalised, people and groups increasingly marginalised, and social inequalities widening. On this last point, COVID‐19 has exposed existing socio‐economic crises and inequalities in gender, class, race, and ethnicity and other intersectionalities that are likely to be further realised over time (see Lokot & Bhata, 2020; The Care Collective, 2020). Care infrastructures especially were already fraying, knotted in their own crisis as an undervalued form of gendered, classed and racialised labour (Fraser, 2016; also see Silver & Hall, 2020). Crises, Fraser reminds us, also have “other strands – economic, ecological, and social – all of which, taken together, add up to a general crisis” (2019, p. 8). Any discussion of pre‐ and post‐pandemic life surely must start from this basis.

For some, the response of the academic community (including geographers) has been described as a space of potential, for hope, care, and collaboration (see Anguelovski, 2020). The move to online and blended learning, grasping new technologies, reimagining fieldwork, research and writing plans, has often been met with sharing, support, and solidarity. Online teaching resources, tips on social media, virtual coffees, writing and reading groups (including those led by research groups of the RGS‐IBG), buddying, mentoring and study schemes for students and staff, and campaigns for fair post‐graduate working conditions are just a few examples (e.g., see Jackson, 2020). It has also led to meaningful conversations about ensuring accessibility going forwards. The pandemic has normalised online learning, and the possibilities this opens up, particularly for disabled people and those with care responsibilities, as well as reshaping possibilities for international conferences and meetings. There are also many downsides to the reduction of face‐to‐face contact, including compounding loneliness and isolation across the community.

At Area we had pondered what the role of the journal in all this might be, and what we might do within our remit as editors and members of this community. As an editorial team we have talked about the responsibility we hold, the care that we can provide, and the collaboration we can encourage. Early into the pandemic we took heed of advice from the RGS‐IBG on the impact on authors and reviewers alike, and particularly gendered effects given the closure of schools and shifting everyday care patterns. Led by Phil Emmerson, our Managing Editor, we prefaced all emails with a statement to acknowledge “that some of our authors and reviewers may currently be experiencing significant personal and professional upheaval, and have offered a much greater degree of flexibility around deadlines to accommodate this. We also tracked more closely submissions according to gender, where possible, and committed to seeking out mechanisms to address these and other potential disparities, including: consulting with the geographical community, raising this issue within the RGS‐IBG and other associated journals, and publishing author and reviewer demographic data for transparency and accountability in future. In editorial meetings we discussed balancing the need for a diverse field of authors and reviewers, with the importance of not further overburdening an already overburdened group of people. We have made efforts to be available and approachable, not least through these regular editorial pieces. During this period, we have also noticed a culture shift around the need to be more flexible, and a recognition that reviewing, resubmissions, editorial decisions etc. are all taking longer. From our conversations with colleagues, we are aware that, over time, the pandemic has the potential to shape personal opportunities and careers (also see Faria, 2020; Hope et al., 2020).

We may not, of course, have always succeeded at these goals, because as an editorial team we have also had to face some of the same challenges. Speaking personally, while I would not equate my experience to a situation of hardship – I am increasingly aware of my privilege in this respect – this was not an easy piece to write. I put it off for ages because the task felt too enormous (how to write about COVID‐19 and care and academia?) and it was my first Area editorial as the newest member of the team. When I had time set aside to write, it got swallowed up by urgent teaching, administration, and supervision tasks (as is often the case). When I did write, it was squeezed between meetings with my laptop balanced on books or propped on the ironing board because of the logistics of working at home, with little space, with a partner also working (loudly!) at the same time. Also, I am really grateful to all those who responded to my slightly desperate Twitter shout‐out on a Friday afternoon mid‐December asking for suggested readings (thanks again to those who replied – you saved my bacon). Nonetheless, I realise the inherent irony of writing an editorial about the impact of pandemic on academic life when time and energy for writing and research are scarce for many.

We are also mindful that responding to COVID‐19 as editors also requires a longer‐term perspective, and many of the changes mentioned above will remain in place. Even when the pandemic is “over,” it has highlighted issues that are difficult to resolve. Area is committed to being a space for critical contributions about the experiences and impacts of COVID‐19 on all elements of geographical work. We encourage rich empirical papers, detailed commentaries and crafted special sections that explore researching the COVID‐19 crisis, teaching during a pandemic, and crisis‐related praxis, impact, and engagement, cutting across the spectrum of Geography (see Geoghegen et al., 2020). Area is also a space for methodological discussions, as Alan Latham noted in his previous editorial, for thinking with method (Latham, 2020), as well as for reflexive pieces via our dedicated Ethics section. And, above all, we want to ensure that Area is a space for listening to the voices of our readers and authors, being open to feedback and creating new possibilities when they are needed most.

这已经是不平凡的12个月了，但是这却使平凡（无论是什么意思？）引起了更大的关注。他们的生活条件，收入和工作保障，工作与生活的平衡，育儿和照料的责任，社区与研究者的关系，教学空间和安全，人际关系，员工与学生的团结，资金机会，实地考察计划等等都已被提及。头。

许多重要的新兴分析提醒我们，在大流行之前，情况并非一帆风顺。在英国和许多其他情况下，紧缩政策严重打击了社区。公共服务悬而未决，机构严重实行新自由主义，人民和群体日益边缘化，社会不平等现象日益扩大。在最后一点上，COVID-19暴露了现有的社会经济危机以及性别，阶级，种族，种族和其他交叉性方面的不平等现象，这些不平等现象可能会随着时间的流逝而进一步实现（参见Lokot＆Bhata，2020；护理集体2020年）。护理基础设施尤其已经处于困境之中，在自身危机中被打压为性别，分类和种族化劳动力的一种被低估的形式（Fraser，2016; 另请参阅Silver＆Hall，2020年）。弗雷泽提醒我们，危机还具有“其他方面-经济，生态和社会方面，所有这些因素加在一起，共同构成了一场一般性危机”（2019年，第8页）。大流行前后的任何讨论肯定都必须以此为基础。

对于某些人来说，学术界（包括地理学家）的回应被描述为一个充满希望，关心和合作的潜在空间（请参阅Anguelovski，2020年）。转向在线和混合学习，掌握新技术，重新构想野外工作，研究和写作计划，常常会得到共享，支持和团结。在线教学资源，社交媒体提示，虚拟咖啡，写作和阅读小组（包括由RGS‐IBG研究小组领导的小组），针对学生和教职员工的伙伴，指导和学习计划，以及开展公平的研究生工作条件的运动只是一些例子（例如，参见Jackson，2020年）。它还导致了有关确保可访问性向前发展的有意义的对话。大流行使在线学习正常化，这为特别是对残疾人和承担护理责任的人打开了在线学习的可能性，并重塑了国际会议的可能性。减少面对面接触还有很多弊端，包括在整个社区增加孤独感和孤立感。

在区域我们已经考虑过期刊在这一切中可能扮演的角色，以及在我们作为本社区的编辑和成员的职权范围内可能做的事情。作为编辑团队，我们谈到了我们所承担的责任，我们可以提供的照顾以及我们可以鼓励的合作。在大流行初期，我们听取了RGS‐IBG对作者和审稿人的影响的建议，尤其是在学校关闭和日常护理模式改变的情况下对性别的影响。在我们的执行编辑Phil Emmerson的带领下，我们在所有电子邮件的开头都声明：“我们的某些作者和审稿人当前可能正在经历重大的个人和职业动荡，并在截止日期附近提供了更大程度的灵活性以适应这一需求。 。我们还尽可能地根据性别跟踪提交的内容，并致力于寻找解决这些和其他潜在差异的机制，包括：与地理社区进行磋商，在RGS-IBG和其他相关期刊中提出此问题，以及出版作者和审阅者的人口统计数据，以确保将来的透明度和问责制。在编辑会议上，我们讨论了在作者和审稿人的多元化领域之间的需求之间取得平衡，以及不要进一步使已经负担过重的人群负担过重的重要性。我们已努力使之变得可用且易于使用，尤其是通过这些常规社论。在此期间，我们还注意到文化在围绕更加灵活的需求方面发生了转变，并意识到审阅，重新提交，编辑决定等问题。都需要更长的时间。通过与同事的交谈，我们意识到，随着时间的流逝，这种大流行病有可能影响个人机会和职业（另请参见Faria，2020 ; Hope等人，2020年）。

当然，我们未必总是能够成功实现这些目标，因为作为编辑团队，我们还必须面对一些相同的挑战。就我个人而言，虽然我不会将自己的经历等同于困境-我越来越意识到我在这方面的特权-这不是一件容易的事。我推迟了很长时间，因为这项任务感觉太艰巨（如何撰写有关COVID-19和医疗保健和学术界的文章？），这是我的第一个专区作为团队的最新成员进行社论。当我有时间腾出时间写作时，它被紧急的教学，管理和监督任务所吞噬（通常是这样）。当我写书时，由于在家里工作的后勤工作，空间很小，而且同伴也同时（大声！）同时工作，所以在会议之间都被挤在笔记本电脑放在书本上或支撑在熨衣板上的状态下。同时，我也非常感谢所有在12月中旬星期五下午对我微弱绝望的Twitter回应做出回应的人，要求提供建议的阅读材料（再次感谢那些回答–您保存了我的培根）。尽管如此，当许多人都缺乏写作和研究的时间和精力时，我意识到写一篇有关大流行对学术生活的影响的内在讽刺意味。

我们也很注意，作为编辑对COVID-19的回应也需要更长远的眼光，并且上面提到的许多更改都将保留下来。即使大流​​行已经过去，它也突出显示了难以解决的问题。Area致力于为COVID-19的经验和对地理工作所有要素的影响做出重要贡献的空间。我们鼓励提供丰富的经验论文，详尽的评论和精心编写的特殊章节，以探索研究COVID-19危机，大流行期间的教学以及与危机相关的实践，影响和参与，并跨越地理的各个方面（请参见Geoghegen等，2020年）。区域正如艾伦·拉瑟姆（Alan Latham）在之前的社论中所指出的那样，它还是方法论讨论的空间，是对方法进行思考的方法（Latham，2020年），以及通过我们专门的伦理学专栏反思的作品。而且，最重要的是，我们要确保“区域”是一个聆听我们的读者和作者的声音的空间，对反馈持开放态度，并在最需要它们时创造新的可能性。