From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:43 -0500

I would ask the perhaps logically prior question of what we know about
the makeup of the self-publishing sector. How much of it consists of
fiction, poetry, etc., and how much of nonfiction? Of the latter, how
much of it purports to represent serious academic work?

Rather than waste time setting up any system for trying to separate
the wheat from the considerable amount of chaff in this sector, maybe
it would be best just to allow "open" peer review to do that work. As
has happened in the past with originally self-published titles like
"The Celestine Prophecy," reissued later by a major publishing house,
audience response may suffice to catapult the relatively small
proportion of worthy works into the category of being considered for
purchase by libraries.

Sandy Thatcher


> From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:39:02 +0100
>
> A senior US librarian has raised this question with me: "I do think that
> there  has to be a way devised to look at all the self-published books out
> there and find a way to rate them in some professional way for libraries.
> Maybe it's an opportunity for librarians to take the lead? Do you know of
> any initiatives in that regard?".
>
> I do not know of any initiatives. I know library initiatives have been
> proposed over the years particularly in the seminal Raym Crow case for
> institutional repositories in 2002
> (see:http://works.bepress.com/ir_research/7/)
> but did any involving libraries organising peer review in this way get off the
> ground or are actually going strong?
>
> Anthony