From: Jim O'Donnell <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:25:44 -0700

Having control of the distribution is good.  I think we're in a
transition moment, when some prefer to think of dissertations as
private performances, of interest to a tiny handful of scholars in the
same field, while others seem them as opportunities to publish and
disseminate ideas while they're fresh and hot.  What the dissertation
becomes (it's been more like the former for a long time) is anybody's
guess, but for now, I can well see that some would have legitimate
reason for preferring tight restriction, others equally legitimate
reason for distribution.  Education and options are desirable.

What has happened in a fair number of fields over the last 50 years is
that the dissertation -- lightly to substantially revised -- has
become the core of the first published book, a crucial step in the
academic career.  As a provost, I have indeed more than once closely
compared a newly published book to the dissertation from which it
sprouted, to see whether and how the book differs from the
dissertation.  My underlying question is 'what has this person done
while working for us?' -- some reasonable enhancement of the
dissertation is one piece of evidence that the scholarly trajectory
has continued to ascend.  If I see a book that *closely* resembles the
dissertation, I then want to look around to see what has happened to
show initiative on second and third projects.  If I find nothing, I'm
worried.

Where that assumption holds true, that the dissertation is more or
less held back until reworked and then published in a more elaborate
way, the expectation of restricted access will be strong and
reasonable.  In fields that are happier to accept the dissertation as
is and expect the scholar/scientist to move on, the expectation will
be different.

Jim O'Donnell
Georgetown

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 7:21 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Sean Andrews <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:12:59 -0500
>
> I agree that education on these matters is valuable - and would be
> interested to hear from publishers if having a digital version of the
> dissertation somehow affects the market for the book.  But otherwise,
> this seems to be a non-issue, at least in terms of the legal concerns.
>  If this person doesn't want his dissertation sold through third party
> retailers, he can write ProQuest and they will remove it.
>
> http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/tpd_retailers.shtml
>
<snip>

> The alternative is that these aren't even filed with UMI, which would
> make it impossible to have the post-publication peer review that is
> central to scholarly communication. I have encountered several such
> cases - especially among older scholars in my field who claim that it
> is too embarrassing to have their dissertation available for all to
> read - even through the old, onerous process Dr. O'Donnell discusses.
>  I have my own opinions on this matter, I'll leave it for others to
> decide whether this is a legitimate claim - or if it should make them
> immune from the evolving scholarly conversation in which they claim to
> otherwise participate.
>
> It's a brave new world, but this particular issue seems the least of
> our worries.
>
> Sean Andrews