Essential knowledge about scholarly book publishing that every author should have. Get weekly tips on writing and publishing your scholarly book from developmental editor and publishing consultant Laura Portwood-Stacer, PhD.
Vibe check at university presses, 2026 edition
Published about 9 hours ago • 8 min read
The Manuscript Works Newsletter
Essential knowledge on scholarly book publishing that every author should have
Hello Manuscript Workers!
What's in this edition:
Reporting back from the Association of University Presses annual conference
As always, if you have a question or suggestion for a future newsletter, you can reply directly to this message. Thanks for reading!
This newsletter is coming to you from Laura Portwood-Stacer, PhD, professional developmental editor and publishing advisor. I help scholarly writers navigate the book publishing process with more ease and agency.
I hope you'll stick around for practical tips on writing and publishing your scholarly book, but if you'd like to adjust your subscription settings, you can do that at the bottom of this message.
Last month, I was excited to attend the annual meeting of the Association of University Presses, held in Seattle, Washington. I was partly there to moderate a panel on editorial labor and working with scholarly authors, but my main aim was to get a sense of how university press staff are feeling in general about a few issues that scholarly authors frequently ask me about. The following is my attempt to synthesize the discussions I heard at formal panel sessions and in more informal conversations with the acquiring editors and other staff I was able to chat with. I can’t cover everything that came up, but I will try to hit the highlights on issues that I get asked about most often and most urgently: the market for scholarly books, academic freedom/censorship, and AI.
Let’s start with the not-so-good news. Presses reported that book sales are down across the board, especially (though not exclusively) for first-time authors publishing books based on dissertations. One key factor in lower sales is a reduction in library budgets across higher education. Because university libraries make up a key market for scholarly books, when their budgets go down, purchases of scholarly books do too. And when librarians have a choice to make in which books to acquire, they are less likely to choose books that are similar to dissertations that the library is already paying for access to via an electronic database. This is not new—I mentioned it in The Book Proposal Book several years ago—but the trend continues to intensify as academic budgets continue to be cut.
What does this mean for you if you are a first-time book author working on a revised dissertation? The book you pitch to a publisher must be meaningfully different from your dissertation. At minimum, publishers want to see a different title and a different chapter structure from what readers can find in your dissertation. The addition of significant new material is often welcome as well. Frustratingly, there is no one-size-fits-all answer to how you must change your specific dissertation to make it into a viable book. But there are some key points to keep in mind as you prepare to pitch your project to publishers (which I will be covering in my free webinar, How to Publish a Book from Your Dissertation, on August 14).
Despite constriction in the market for university press books, there appeared to be a general feeling of optimism that sales trends tend to cycle and university presses will remain viable as publishers. This optimism is partly due to the fact that university presses remain staunchly committed to their role as mission-driven publishers. I repeatedly heard editors and press directors express that profit is not a main goal for their press, nor are editorial decisions driven by commercial expectations. Scholarly publishers do expect books to have clear audiences, compelling comparable titles, and significant intellectual contributions, but all of this is less about commercial appeal than it is about offering compelling value to a well-defined scholarly community that aligns with the press’s mission.
While it seems that the intellectual mission of university presses is as strong as ever, there is less optimism about support for that mission among university administrators (and state governments in the case of university presses attached to public universities in red and purple states). The vibes aren’t too dire though: in light of the real challenges posed by unsympathetic administrators and government entities, university press leaders shared that they are thinking deeply and strategically about how to build solidarity with academic authors in the face of political and financial pressures. University presses remain committed to publishing books that stimulate scholarly and public debate, even (perhaps especially) on topics that have become targets of censorship in the past two years.
My impression is that no presses are trying to steer their authors away from controversial topics or obeying in advance when political suppression intersects with the books they are being pitched. Multiple editors in fact expressed dismay that authors might feel the need to self-censor projects about race, gender, or any other topic that might be condemned as “DEI” by fascist politicians, though they were supportive when writers wanted to change the titles or other marketing aspects of their books in hopes of keeping their projects from attracting attacks or suppression at the university or state level.
The takeaway for you if you’re an author worried about the ramifications of publishing your book because your topic or field has become risky: look at scholarly publishers as allies to be communicated with transparently and strategically. People who work at university presses are on your side. They would much rather work with you to publish your book in a way that feels safe for you—even if it means some changes to content or format that you discuss collaboratively—than to have you self-censor by not submitting your project for consideration at all. And just as university presses are trying to have authors’ backs, they also see the need for the broader academic community to have their backs. Speakers at the conference noted that authors and readers of scholarly books, along with faculty who share campuses with university presses, can serve as publishers’ most important and vocal advocates when university administrators and government officials question whether university presses deserve funding and institutional support.
AI is the other big topic that many scholarly authors are concerned about right now, and AI was indeed a regular subject of conversation at the AUPresses conference. While AI tools are increasingly being incorporated into workflows in certain university press departments (such as production and marketing), the overall vibe among the editors I talked to ranged from overtly hostile to open-minded-but-not-yet-convinced about AI’s value for scholarly writers and publishers. Whenever the topic of AI came up incidentally in conversation, the general attitude expressed could best be summed up as “Ugh.” If you lean negative on AI (as I happen to), I can safely say that many acquiring editors at university presses are right there with you.
I pressed a few editors on how they felt about authors potentially using AI to help write their book proposals or even their manuscripts. I specifically asked whether they would object to writers employing AI tools for grammar assistance, especially in the case of authors who don’t feel entirely comfortable writing in English. All the editors I talked to agreed that they would not want to receive a proposal written with the use of generative AI. The use of assistive AI tools for grammar checking didn’t bother people as much as the thought of a writer using a large language model to generate actual content in their proposal or manuscript. Every person I spoke with felt strongly that authors should disclose the nature of their AI use on any submitted materials so that editors would be able to provide appropriate guidance on press policies and any relevant legal issues (with respect to copyright concerns, for example). If the editor thought the project’s concept was promising and learned that the author had used AI tools when preparing the proposal or manuscript, the editor would want to be able to advise the author on what and how to revise rather than rejecting the project out of hand.
Some presses have posted formalized guidelines about AI use on their websites, and many more presses are in the process of doing so. If you aren’t sure what extent of AI use your target press will tolerate, I encourage open dialogue with someone at the press. If you aren’t yet in contact with an acquiring editor, try reaching out to the press’s editorial director. Whoever you talk to about it, remember that it’s better to disclose AI use honestly so you can receive guidance on how to pivot, if necessary, than to conceal your use of AI until it’s too late and your book contract might be in jeopardy.
For authors, I believe the safest, most ethical route right now is not to use AI to write your book proposal or manuscript. You may not know if the editor you are sending your materials to is staunchly anti-AI, and I personally wouldn’t want to take on the risk that they would form a negative impression of me or my project if they suspected AI use. If you’re less risk-averse than I am and you do want to use AI on your materials, be ready to explain exactly how you used it, because some applications (e.g. grammar checkers) may be more acceptable than others (e.g. asking Claude to write your project description).
Overall, I have to say that the vibes at the AUPresses conference were pretty good. The publishing staff present clearly love what they do and care deeply about supporting scholarly authors. Could the positive atmosphere have been a reflection of selection bias, due to the presses going through rougher times not sending anyone to the conference (which was admittedly pricy to attend)? Possibly. The vibes may also have been enhanced by the fact that the World Cup was in town and our conference hotel also happened to be home base for the Egyptian team that weekend (random, but fun!). In any case, I hope you’ll take heart that mission-driven scholarly publishing shows little signs of closing up shop anytime soon. And I can say with confidence that acquiring editors at many, many presses are still eager to hear from you about your provocative and important book projects!
Stay tuned to this newsletter in the coming months for deeper insights from some of the individual editors I met while in Seattle. Thanks for reading, and keep scrolling for some additional resources to help you on your publishing journey.
Upcoming events
Free webinar on August 14, 2026. Recording provided to all who register; live attendance encouraged but not required.
Looking for professional support with your book or article manuscript, but not sure who can help? When you fill out my referral request form, you'll be sent a curated list of trusted editors—matched to your specific field and needs—whom you can contact right away.
Keep in mind that experienced developmental editors may book up months in advance, so if you're even starting to contemplate working with someone, now is the time to reach out.
If you have a friend, colleague, or student who might enjoy the Manuscript Works Newsletter, could you forward this email to them and encourage them to subscribe at newsletter.manuscriptworks.com? Thank you for reading and sharing!
P.S. Registration is now open for the next Book Proposal Accelerator (September 8–October 16). If you want to submit a book proposal to publishers before 2026 is over, this is your chance to get it done with expert support.
Essential knowledge about scholarly book publishing that every author should have. Get weekly tips on writing and publishing your scholarly book from developmental editor and publishing consultant Laura Portwood-Stacer, PhD.