There are about 125 university presses, and somewhere around 4,000 institutions of higher learning. For decades, universities that don’t have presses have relied on the few that do for the scholarly production of their faculty. University presses became the gatekeepers and validators not only of the tenure system but also of faculty productivity. Most people within the university-press system believe it’s time all universities should contribute to support scholarly and creative production. We need more university presses, not fewer.—Dan Williams
•
The same or slightly fewer, though that is not likely to be a very popular answer. There are likely too many specialized books published each year — and because library monograph budgets have been decimated in the post-recession period, there is simply not enough of a remaining market to truly sustain this level of output. —Leila Salisbury
•
Publishers, press directors, editors, scholars, and other insiders share their views on the state and future of academic publishing.
The number of university presses is about right. Since commercial publishers have almost no interest in the value of scholarship (except insofar as it serves the interests of shareholders), fewer university presses necessarily means fewer publications in scholarly disciplines and safer and more conventional approaches to topics of general interest. —David Rosenbaum
•
We need more university presses, not fewer. The next generation of scholars will find a narrower range of publishing possibilities if the number of publishers shrinks, and our conversation about things important will be greatly reduced. —Sandra Dijkstra
•
We need more nimble university presses — presses willing to experiment with new forms of publication. And if that means that we need more university presses than we currently have now, then yes, we need more.— Matthew K. Gold
•
Consolidation is dangerous but probably necessary. There are economies of scale, particularly in production, sales, publicity, marketing, and fulfillment. Perhaps a consortia model would work, the way Perseus was set up before its sale to Hachette: independent editorial imprints that shared back-end services. —Wendy Strothman
•
In my perfect world there are a dozen or so consortia defined by geography, where each university in the region exists as an imprint under one large umbrella group. —Justin Race
•
I would be much more interested in seeing institutions that do not have presses routinely develop subvention funds for scholars, which would help alleviate some of the costs of their books’ production.—Dawn Durante
•
It’s always tempting to respond to such questions by saying “more.” But even the best parties, populated by the most delightful people and with the most delicious food, sometimes become crowded. And “fewer” doesn’t seem a very smart answer as it would inevitably increase workloads and expenses among the remaining presses, as well as potentially diminish opportunities for authors and readers. —Bruce Austin
•
I would phrase the question somewhat differently. We need fewer books. This is the elephant in the living room. There is an oversupply of books as a result of current tenure requirements. This is happening as library budgets are flat or cut. Who is going to buy these books if there is not enough money for them all to be acquired? What really needs to happen is a change in tenure requirements. Not every scholar in every type of institution (research university, liberal-arts college, community college) should be required to write a book. —Beatrice Rehl
•
University presses offer such an important alternative to commercial academic publishers that it would be terrible to lose any of them. The partnership they provide for academic authors, and the value they provide to society, simply can’t be replicated by other publishing models. —Gita Devi Manaktala
•
We certainly don’t need fewer. There’s a great value in having a diversity of university presses, some large, some small, each with a distinctive profile. —Laurie Matheson
•
More university presses? I’d rather see a more coherent vision of university-based publishing. — Richard Brown
