Meet the editors: what we do at conferences

For academics, stepping into the world of scholarly conferences for the first time can feel like crossing the Rubicon. After months (or sometimes years) of what is often a solitary research journey, scholars enter a dynamic ecosystem where subfields collide and converge, and colleagues at every career stage rub shoulders in line for coffee and conversation.

For Oxford’s two newest politics editors, Morgan Jones and Gabe Kachuck, the recent American Political Science Association annual meeting in Vancouver, Canada, was their first opportunity to experience the rush of new ideas and new faces firsthand. Below, Morgan and Gabe share their initial impressions, memorable moments, and key lessons—for themselves and for future conference delegates.

You were first time attendees at the APSA conference. Any highlights?

We were proud to represent Oxford University Press at one of the field’s largest gatherings. Having a good number of our books together at one booth really brought the list to life, and it was exciting to see old friends, new collaborators, and curious strangers leafing through the range of the categories we’re publishing in. Vancouver itself was a standout: the Convention Centre’s two glass-walled buildings stood handsomely against the cerulean harbor, framed by the mountains and dotted with sea planes taking off and landing. The fresh air was welcome amid back-to-back meetings and sobering discussions about the state of global affairs.

How are scholars responding to the political challenges of our time?

This is a poignant question, following the assassination of American political activist Charlie Kirk. The conference was just getting underway when the news landed; it quickly consumed everyone in attendance, as did the unrest that followed. Responses to the violence were myriad, but the constant was an ever-growing concern for the future of democratic norms. Scholars and researchers at APSA brought a wealth of expertise to this issue and so many others that define our current moment. We were moved by their commitment to asking good questions and developing grounded answers to inform the path forward.

How did you build your schedule?

Planning for the conference began a month or so prior to our flights to Vancouver. Because we are both new editors at OUP, we are still in the process of meeting all the authors we’ve inherited from our predecessor. In building our schedules, we aimed to strike a balance between chatting with these authors about their progress and connecting with others whose work is of interest, for a variety of different reasons. We met a mix of early-career researchers and experienced scholars who offered insights into trends and developments in any given subfield. We also left time in our schedules for panels and “down time” at the exhibition booth, where we enjoyed lively, organic conversations about Oxford’s list and what people are up to in the field.

Since you both acquire academic and trade titles for Oxford’s politics list, how did you approach conversations at APSA?

We start our conversations by working to understand what you aim to do and who you want your work to reach, whether that be fellow academics, students, policymakers, practitioners, or general readers. From there, we can offer feedback on whether your book project is set up to effectively meet those goals, and, if so, what might look like if you were to publish an academic, trade, or crossover work with us at OUP. Aligning your needs as author with ours as publisher is key to a successful partnership.

What kind of book proposals or research topics seemed especially compelling or timely?

Our first question when evaluating a proposal is: what’s novel here? That might mean unpublished interviews conducted during fieldwork abroad, newly uncovered census or survey data, or a fresh conceptual approach to understanding the structures that shape power and politics around the world. The proposals that stood out to us at APSA were those with a clear sense of their potential impact—whether on specific subfields or on broader public discourse. We’re always drawn to ambitious arguments or narratives that aim to tackle questions too expansive for a single journal article. Those are the kinds of projects that consistently make us lean in and want to learn more!

Did you attend any panels? If so, were there standout moments or recurring themes caught your attention?

Gabe was able to attend a few panels between meetings, including the Author Meets Critics session for When the Internet Meets Authoritarian Governance: China’s Digital Governance and a paper discussion on nuclear deterrence strategies. It was heartening to hear OUP books cited in both sessions—a reminder of our ongoing impact on the field. The panels offered sharp insights into how political science is engaging with questions of state power in digital and strategic contexts.

One recurring theme across panels and informal conversations was the role of AI in shaping research, scholarship, and teaching. Scholars are clearly grappling with how to integrate these tools into their work and classrooms, and there’s far from a consensus on how best to do so. It’s a space marked by both experimentation and uncertainty, and it’s likely to remain a live conversation for some time.

Now that you’ve attended your first academic conference, do you have any advice for scholars hoping to connect with you and other OUP editors?

Reach out early to request a meeting! Our emails can be found on OUP’s website under Find an Editor. Even if we aren’t able to connect with you during the conference, we’re open to setting up virtual meetings before or after events have wrapped. Or, come by the booth to say hello. We are often on the go, but we enjoy meet-and-greets and would be glad to listen to an elevator pitch of your research interests, works-in-progress, or forthcoming submissions.

Photo by Rob te Braake on Unsplash.

OUPblog - Academic insights for the thinking world.