The academic publishing landscape has long been dominated by a particular vision of research excellence: the collection of primary data through fieldwork, experiments, or surveys, followed by statistical or systematic analysis, and culminating in empirically grounded conclusions. Yet this vision, however valuable, excludes and undervalues an entire tradition of scholarly contribution-the non-empirical research article that produces knowledge through conceptual analysis, theoretical synthesis, systematic literature review, case argumentation, and philosophical inquiry. Many scholars, particularly early-career researchers in developing academic contexts, believe that research without primary data is not "real research" and is therefore unpublishable in reputable journals. This belief is empirically unfounded and intellectually limiting. This qualitative study explores how scholars understand, experience, and navigate the challenge of producing publishable non-empirical research, drawing on in-depth interviews with 36 academics from Ugandan universities, supplemented by document analysis of journal submission guidelines and editorial policies. Participants shared candid reflections on their fears about non-empirical work, the institutional pressures they face, the intellectual strategies they have developed, and the moments of breakthrough when they realised that conceptual rigour can be as publishable as statistical sophistication. The study provides a practical, experience-grounded guide to non-empirical research approaches that aims to expand the methodological confidence and publishing productivity of scholars in resource-constrained academic environments.