From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:07:27 -0500

One important development that has contributed to the dissemination
and more widespread use of dissertations is the Networked Digital
Library of Theses and Dissertations, which was established in 1996 and
now includes hundreds of participating universities around the world:
http://www.ndltd.org/about/history

What Jim does as a provost I wish librarians did as purchasers of
revised dissertations, viz., actually compare the original
dissertation to the revised version and then make a decision about
buying it. I realize that would be extraordinarily time-consuming and
costly, but what has happened instead is that many academic libraries
have just assumed that there is not much value added in the revised
version and therefore have instructed their vendors not to include
revised dissertations in their approval plan orders. This has resulted
in a very substantial decline in sales of first books that can be
traced back to dissertations. (Authors should at least make such
identification harder for potential buyers by NOT using the same title
as the dissertation and NOT thanking their dissertation advisers in
their Acknowledgments!) Because acquiring editors know about this
practice, they are reluctant to review dissertations. Yet P&T
committees in many fields in the humanities especially, and also in
some social sciences, continue to insist on publication of at least
one book as a requirement for tenure. This is a major dysfunction in
the current system. Ironically, while PDA may be harmful to university
presses in some respects, it may actually be beneficial for revised
dissertations because it takes the decision to purchase out of the
hands of librarians and gives it to actual users.

Jim may be interested to know that his question about "how much
revision?" became a formal part of the procedure for reviewing
manuscripts at Penn State Press while I was director. Authors of
revised dissertations were asked to explain, in detail, how their
books differed from their dissertations, and this information was
included along with reviewers' reports and other materials that the
Press's editorial board used as a basis for deciding whether or not to
approve publication. I would not be surprised if this procedure has
become widespread at presses--at least those that still have any
interest in considering revised dissertations at all!

Sandy Thatcher


> 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