There are multiple job postings for acquisitions editors at university presses at the moment, and I am disappointed to see that, after a successful year of remote work, many presses remain committed to having all staff work out of their offices. This is a missed opportunity.

I understand the benefits that come with being physically at the office. Yes, there are serendipitous conversations and the ability to call ad hoc meetings. But I'm convinced the advantages of being flexible regarding location and schedule far outweigh these minor benefits.

In a world of increasing immobility for many people, especially for those with partners, children, and other persons under their care, the old model that requires being physically located at a single office is outdated and dramatically limits the applicant pool.

Academic presses are known for their resistance to change, and in some respects for good reason. I still believe strongly in print books. I value open access but am hesitant about the push in that direction. But this is an area where conservatism makes no sense.

Besides being more productive while working from home, I've found the virtual tools we use to be more effective. Teams, for instance, is actually really useful software that we would continue to use even if everyone worked at the office. https://twitter.com/Joi_the_Artist/status/1386187492651462659?s=20

Zoom has made it possible for Kansas to hold our faculty review board meetings when needed throughout the year, rather than on a rigid quarterly schedule, which required some faculty to drive several hours across Kansas to our office in Lawrence. We're safer and more efficient.

I understand the desire to have UP staff plugged into their home university. But how essential is it really to have editors be able to walk over to faculty offices? These are infrequent occurrences at best. I think presses need to reconsider their priorities.