Liountmila Korelidou/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Scholarly authors often feel unsure about what happens behind the closed doors of academic publishers once their manuscripts are accepted for peer review. While most authors know about the peer-review process—obtaining anonymous feedback from peer scholars in the field—far fewer authors think about the next step: editorial board approval.
Editorial boards, sometimes known as faculty boards or press committees, rarely interact with authors directly. As a result, much of their work providing constructive feedback flies under the radar. However, they play a critical role in scholarly publishing by serving as an external and, to a large extent, independent entity charged with overseeing the approval process and ensuring that presses follow best practices for peer review. In many ways, editorial boards contribute to academic press legitimacy. Editorial board members also serve as a distinct knowledge-sharing resource, a factor that distinguishes scholarly presses from commercial publishers.
Where though, does the editorial board connect to the book on its publication journey? Before a project enters the production process, an editor will take the project forward for approval by the editorial board. Board members will often read a packet of material about the project. In addition, the editor or editorial director may make presentations on projects during a meeting. This certification process often allows the press to offer or finalize a contract and opens the doorway to publication. As such, these boards are vital to overseeing the academic integrity and publication programs of the presses they serve.
The Association of University Presses (AUPresses) requires member presses to have editorial boards composed of scholars from the parent institution(s). These editorial boards are “charged with certifying the scholarly quality of the publications that bear the institutional imprint.” To ensure consistency with these guidelines, AUPresses periodically surveys university presses about their relationships with their editorial boards, most recently in 2025.
The main objective of AUPresses’ surveys in the last decade has been to assess how editorial boards function across member presses of different sizes, subject strengths, structures and geographic locations. While university presses have been relying on the work of editorial boards for decades, the 2025 survey highlighted a few interesting directions in editorial board practices.
One prominent takeaway from all surveys was that presses are interested in diversifying their boards and that career stage and subject matter expertise may not be as important as communication skills when it comes to serving on a board. Serving on a press’s editorial board typically falls into the large “service” category that many scholars are familiar with. Board members often serve defined terms, and in some cases, they volunteer for subsequent terms. Most presses ask tenured or tenure-track faculty who have written at least one book to serve on editorial boards.
While university presses typically specialize in publishing in specific disciplines or fields, more than half of the presses surveyed indicated that their boards do not consist only of scholars in the subject areas in which they publish. Survey respondents answered that while recruiting board members who have a particular expertise has been the norm, finding board members who are engaged with the process and who communicate effectively is perhaps even more important.
The frequency and location of editorial board meetings and discussions have evolved since the first iteration of the AUPresses editorial board survey in 2017. According to the survey, when and how editorial boards meet varies: They meet both synchronously and asynchronously. Some have regularly scheduled meetings, and others convene when they reach an actionable number of book projects. Some presses employ multiple meeting strategies. This increased adaptability is likely traceable to COVID-19, as presses sought more flexible ways to engage with their boards and keep projects moving during the shutdown.
One intriguing data point that the survey revealed involved the use of Indigenous advisory boards, which advise presses separately from editorial boards. Out of 108 responding presses, only two presses indicated that they had an Indigenous advisory board. Specialist advisory boards that help presses gain feedback and perspectives from experts outside university faculty are especially important for topics like Indigenous studies, which have historically not always served the communities they studied.
Much has been said recently on the challenges institutions are facing around issues of academic freedom; events in the past year have shown how fragile academic independence can be in the face of changing political winds. In these times, it is vital to protect academic freedom by strengthening collaboration between presses and faculty members. Presses should continue to seek out, advocate for and publish scholarship that contributes to the public good, even when it would seem to go against political currents, and they should support their authors whenever they face pressure from governing bodies. Faculty members in turn can support this mission by serving on editorial boards and speaking up for the work of university presses to the greatest extent possible. Serving on an editorial board allows scholars to become more familiar with the publishing process and what their institution is publishing, and thereby more able to support it.
Editorial boards serve additional vital purposes, as they provide an opportunity for faculty to learn more about their institution’s press, maintain the quality of a press’s publication program and share important information about how academic publishing is growing and changing. While presses often recruit board members, the 2025 survey suggests that faculty members who have an interest in serving on a board—whether they have subject matter expertise or not—should reach out to their presses for information.
