> Skip to content
FEATURED:
  • The Evolution of Race in Admissions
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
ADVERTISEMENT
The Review
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Show more sharing options
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
  • Copy Link URLCopied!
  • Print

What is the most common misunderstanding that scholars have about university presses?

June 4, 2017

Just how much work goes into every book and how many hands touch each project. —Justin Race

•

That the only cost of making a book, for example, is the cost of paper, printing, and binding. We peer review, we develop, we copy-edit, we proofread, we design, we typeset, we market, we sell, we submit for awards, we sell subsidiary rights, we manage permissions requests, etc. So just producing a book digitally does not make it free, but I am constantly amazed at how many people believe just that. —Darrin Pratt

We’re sorry. Something went wrong.

We are unable to fully display the content of this page.

The most likely cause of this is a content blocker on your computer or network. Please make sure your computer, VPN, or network allows javascript and allows content to be delivered from c950.chronicle.com and chronicle.blueconic.net.

Once javascript and access to those URLs are allowed, please refresh this page. You may then be asked to log in, create an account if you don't already have one, or subscribe.

If you continue to experience issues, contact us at 202-466-1032 or help@chronicle.com

Just how much work goes into every book and how many hands touch each project. —Justin Race

•

That the only cost of making a book, for example, is the cost of paper, printing, and binding. We peer review, we develop, we copy-edit, we proofread, we design, we typeset, we market, we sell, we submit for awards, we sell subsidiary rights, we manage permissions requests, etc. So just producing a book digitally does not make it free, but I am constantly amazed at how many people believe just that. —Darrin Pratt

•

They think that the marketing and promotional budgets at university presses are just slightly less than today’s cost to produce a feature film with A-list actors. —Bruce Austin

ADVERTISEMENT

•

Review - Publishing Package
The Future of the University Press
Publishers, press directors, editors, scholars, and other insiders share their views on the state and future of academic publishing.
  • Our Contributors
  • Scholarly prose gets a bad rap. Is it deserved?
  • Do we need more university presses? Fewer?
  • How will university presses look 20 years from now?
  • How should the university press role in hiring and promotion change?
  • What book do you wish someone would write?
  • What topic areas are overpublished?
  • What is the biggest challenge in university-press publishing?
  • Acquisitions editors are overwhelmingly white. How does this affect what gets published?

That it is a moral imperative to make information free, regardless of the investment in curation. I’ve had too many contentious discussions with faculty when I try to explain that we don’t have the funding to support their open-access desires. “Well I can get $3,000 from the library or provost.” That’s great, but the book cost $30,000 to publish. It’s not personal. It’s not greed or a difference of philosophies. Idealistically, I believe everything should be for free (food, shelter, health care, etc.). But we can’t lose $27,000 on every book for the sake of a mission. I’m a not-for-profit, but I’m not that not-for-profit. —James McCoy

•

That electronic is free and solves all problems. The exact opposite is the truth: Electronic is 120 percent of cost and creates more difficulties. —Carey Newman

•

ADVERTISEMENT

I don’t think they realize there’s a big push for transformation — one that might, for example, move the cost of publishing away from a book’s customers and toward the author’s employer. That would dramatically restrict the pool of potential authors, since many don’t work for universities that can afford to pay to publish their faculty’s books, or may not be on the tenure track at all. —Derek Krissoff

•

That there is some clear relationship between the reputation of an institution and the quality of materials published by a press that it sponsors.

The quality of a press’s output is primarily a function of excellence in peer review. Peer review shouldn’t be a black-box phenomenon. What it means to be scholarly, regardless of which press is publishing a book, is that (a) the work was reviewed and (b) the nature of the review is made plain to the reader. But when, if ever, does a university press disclose to the reader information about evaluation the work has undergone?

There are straightforward ways to address this: (a) a clear and public disclosure of what we mean when we say “double-blind,” “single-blind,” “peer-to-peer,” “open,” etc.; (b) a disclosure of what object was reviewed (The proposal? The proposal and a sample chapter? The entire manuscript?); and (c) a clear signaling system, much like that which the Creative Commons system of icons performs in the area of rights, to make clear to the reader the review process employed in a given work. By making clear the nature and substance of the peer review each work has undergone, such a system would level the playing field among presses — and make clear the distinct value of what they do. —Mark Edington

ADVERTISEMENT

•

That individual university presses primarily publish books written by their host institution’s faculty.

—John Byram

That we’re all the same. We come in all varieties and have different emphases. When looking to publish with a university press, authors need to think about fit and not name. — Joyce Harrison

•

ADVERTISEMENT

That we’re either textbook publishers or driven by profit motives. —Dennis Lloyd

•

That university presses can continue to publish in fields in which publication is not supported by the disciplines — that is, in fields where scholars don’t purchase one another’s books. —Eric Halpern

•

That they are in the business of publishing revised dissertations. —Laurie Matheson

ADVERTISEMENT

•

That they are dumping stations for unreadable pseudoscholarship. —Lindsay Waters

•

That millions of people will read their book. —Beatrice Rehl

•

ADVERTISEMENT

That there is little interest among the general public in the works released by university presses, and so scholars seek other publishing venues. —Julia M. Gelfand

•

That university-press books don’t get read. While sales have declined in recent years, readership and usage of our books has skyrocketed. Because books have been slower in their move to digital availability than journals, it has taken longer for usage to be recognized, but popular online platforms like Project Muse and JSTOR are reporting anecdotally that book chapters are often more accessed than journal articles. —Charles Watkinson

•

Authors don’t understand that presses develop their lists to become strong in some areas and not others — and try to build on those profiles with every new acquisition. That means that many excellent books get turned down because they don’t “fit” the list. —Jennifer Crewe

ADVERTISEMENT

•

That we are old-fashioned, out of date, print-only publishers, that we have reluctantly joined the digital revolution, and that we produce only monographs. Nothing could be further from the truth. Are we risk averse? Only insofar as our budgets dictate. —Meredith Babb

•

As a rule authors don’t have an understanding of the publishing process and financial constraints. That’s not their fault; it’s ours. We have not done an adequate job educating authors and editors about what goes on inside the black box.—Richard Brown

•

ADVERTISEMENT

The biggest misperception to me is that it is somehow less than desirable, or questionable, for a scholar to publish with their own institution’s press. —Jane Ferreyra

A version of this article appeared in the June 9, 2017, issue.
Read other items in this The Future of the University Press package.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Opinion
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
    Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
  • The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
    The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
    Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
  • Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
    Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2023 The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin