What does the European university press landscape actually look like? For too long, the honest answer has been: we don’t really know. Commercial scholarly publishing is extensively tracked, but the non-profit, institutionally embedded end of the spectrum has remained largely invisible in data and policy debates. AEUP set out to change that – and while responses are still coming in, the first wave already tells a compelling story.
What do we know about the respondents?
Just over half of AEUP’s full members responded. Nearly 60% report directly to a university rectorate or presidency, with most of the remainder reporting to a library. About half are fully integrated into their institution and three-quarters of those say this works well for them.
One finding stands out on scale: 25% of respondents operate with just one or two full-time equivalent staff. When you consider the range of tasks university presses typically handle – from peer review and copyright advice to open access advocacy and mentoring early career researchers – that is a remarkable effort done by very few hands.
University presses are also a genuine force for multilingualism: 29 of 55 respondents publish in both their national language and English, compared to just nine publishing exclusively in English.
Diamond Open Access: already a reality, firmly a priority
The most significant finding may be how far Diamond Open Access has already been normalised. Among presses publishing journals, 87% report that more than half their content is freely available, overwhelmingly through Diamond OA. On the book side, 46% produce a significant share of their output without charging authors or readers.
Looking ahead, 65% name Diamond OA as a central strategic priority for the next three to five years, with a further 20% actively considering it.
What stands in the way? Respondents pointed mainly to three consistent barriers: lack of structural funding, insufficient staff capacity, and inadequate technical infrastructure. National funding frameworks and research assessment systems were also cited – a reminder that publishing reform cannot happen in isolation from broader research policy.
Sustainable, but under pressure
Most presses feel they can sustain their current programmes. But eight report their book output is under significant threat, and three flag real concern about their journal programmes. Thirty-two respondents estimate more than half their operation is subsidised by their institution; 17 rely primarily on other sources, such as sales, subscriptions, consortial funding, and grants.
What comes next?
AEUP will follow up these findings with member webinars, work on shared service opportunities, and a full paper with detailed results. A second round of data collection is planned for autumn 2026.
The policy message emerging from the data is direct: institutions should sustain their presses and consider redirecting a share of commercial OA spending toward their own publishing infrastructure. Policymakers drafting new open access or research assessment frameworks should consult university presses – for they have been quietly practising Diamond OA and equitable scholarly communication long before these became policy priorities.
The AEUP survey is still open – if you haven’t responded yet, now is the time. Your data helps make our community visible.