Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    Hands-On Career Preparation
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    Alternative Pathways
Sign In
The Review

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

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

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

•

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
  • Do we need more university presses? Fewer?
  • Scholarly prose gets a bad rap. Is it deserved?
  • 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?
  • Acquisitions editors are overwhelmingly white. How does this affect what gets published?
  • What topic areas are overpublished?
  • What is the biggest challenge in university-press publishing?

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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 The Future of the University Press.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Opinion
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

Collage of charts
Data
How Faculty Pay and Tenure Can Change Depending on Academic Discipline
Vector illustration of two researcher's hands putting dollar signs into a beaker leaking green liquid.
'Life Support'
As the Nation’s Research-Funding Model Ruptures, Private Money Becomes a Band-Aid
Photo-based illustration of scissors cutting through a flat black and white university building and a landscape bearing the image of a $100 bill.
Budget Troubles
‘Every Revenue Source Is at Risk’: Under Trump, Research Universities Are Cutting Back
Photo-based illustration of the Capitol building dome topping a jar of money.
Budget Bill
Republicans’ Plan to Tax Higher Ed and Slash Funding Advances in Congress

From The Review

Photo-based illustration of the sculpture, The Thinker, interlaced with anotehr image of a robot posed as The Thinker with bits of binary code and red strips weaved in.
The Review | Essay
What I Learned Serving on My University’s AI Committee
By Megan Fritts
Illustration of a Gold Seal sticker embossed with President Trump's face
The Review | Essay
What Trump’s Accreditation Moves Get Right
By Samuel Negus
Illustration of a torn cold seal sticker embossed with President Trump's face
The Review | Essay
The Weaponization of Accreditation
By Greg D. Pillar, Laurie Shanderson

Upcoming Events

Ascendium_06-10-25_Plain.png
Views on College and Alternative Pathways
Coursera_06-17-25_Plain.png
AI and Microcredentials
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin