From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:09:04 -0500

Your analogy breaks down, Rick, because the book that originated as a
dissertation does not really list its "ingredients" anywhere.  There
is no explanation to be found in any such book as to exactly what
revisions were made to turn the dissertation into a book. (If this
information exists anywhere, it exists in an internal document that
some presses ask authors to provide so that their editorial boards are
apprised of the nature and extent of the revisions.) Thus librarians,
in deciding whether or not to purchase revised dissertations, are at a
significant disadvantage in lacking any detailed knowledge of this
kind that could lead them to make truly informed and discriminating
decisions. Instead, they have to rely on vague presumptions--if they
decline to include these books in their approval plans--that any
revisions made to the dissertations were merely cosmetic and
superficial in nature.  That does not strike me as a way to make very
informed "consumer" purchases.

Sandy Thatcher


> From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 03:02:01 +0000
>
>> I understand that efficiencies benefit the entire system, but
>> discerning the history of a particular piece of scholarship used to be
>> a part of the value that the distributor added to the process. Now it
>> is being asked of the publisher. It feels a bit like being asked to
>> bag our own groceries after first removing our own products from the
>> shelves.
>
> You've got it backwards. In the scenario you propose, the people buying
> the groceries are the librarians. You (publishers) are farmers who are
> being asked by the grocers (vendors) to say whether you're sending them
> apples or apricots or artichokes to sell. And you're objecting to this
> request on the basis that some customers don't like artichokes, and that
> if you tell the grocers you're sending artichokes it's going to hurt your
> business.
>
> But it's also important to point out that none of this is about
> "efficiency." It's about effectiveness. It's about helping libraries --
> which, let us remember, exist to help the scholars who are writing these
> books -- buy the books that will help those scholars best.
>
>> I also think that many publishers fundamentally disagree with some
>> librarians about the value added in the revision and publication of a
>> book based on previous work.
>
> I'm sure they do. Sellers very often disagree with their customers about
> the value of their goods and services. Unfortunately for sellers, their
> value propositions carry very little weight in a marketplace. It's buyers,
> not sellers, that determine the market value of products.
>
>> While I may
>> technically work for the library here, my job is to champion the work
>
>  >of our authors. I do not see in this scenario how communicating that
>  >their book is based on their previous work benefits them.
>
> It doesn't, any more than it benefits the producer of a breakfast cereal
> to identify the ingredients in its product. Those who pay attention to
> ingredient lists are less likely to buy if they learn that a product
> contains stuff they don't like. But that's no excuse for a food producer
> to fail to list its ingredients.
>
> In other words, if you're concerned that telling us what you're selling is
> going to hurt your business, then there may be a problem with your
> product.
>
>
> Rick Anderson
> Interim Dean, J. Willard Marriott Library
> University of Utah
> [log in to unmask]