From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 00:18:39 -0500

That's a ridiculous extrapolation from what I said. My remark had
specifically to do with revised dissertations, which I presented
evidence about selling less well than regular books (in Latin American
studies) and suggested that one possible explanation was a bias in
ordering them--a suggestion that was earlier confirmed by an expert at
YBP, before Mike Zeoli interjected some information leading to a more
nuanced view (which, nevertheless, still suggested a strong bias
against revised dissertations as published by commercial publishers).
How to leap to the conclusion that I was arguing that publishers
should be making all the decisions about all books is beyond me.

Also, I don't know why YBP would bother to ask university presses to
distinguish between revised and unrevised dissertations. University
presses NEVER publish unrevised dissertations.  Now some academic
publishers, like Edwin Mellen Press, might. But I would challenge YBP
to name one book published by a university press (i.e., a member of
the AAUP, not a "university press" like the University Press of
America) that was an unrevised dissertation.  It is a silly question
to ask.

Sandy Thatcher


At 6:58 PM -0400 4/25/13, LIBLICENSE wrote:

> From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 04:08:17 +0000
>
>> If there is reason to believe that librarians are reluctant to buy
>> revised dissertations, then indeed providing that information is doing
>> a disservice to authors because librarians are not acting on as much
>> information as the publishers themselves have about these books.
>
> But this is true of every book, whether dissertation-based or not: the
> publisher will always have access to more information about the books it
> publishes than a librarian will. (Particularly if the publisher refuses to
> share relevant information about the book, believing that fewer libraries
> will buy if they know what they're getting.)
>
> So by this logic, librarians really shouldn't be entrusted with selecting
> books for their collections at all. The content of library collections
> should be determined by publishers, since they have so much more
> information about their books. (Still less should patrons select the books
> that they -- in their blinkered ignorance -- believe they need in order to
> do their work. After all, they have even less information about these
> books than librarians do.)
>
> It seems to me that would save a lot of time and energy would be if we all
> simply shut up and handed all our money over to the publishers, in return
> silently and gratefully accepting whatever books they deign, in their
> greater wisdom and knowledge, to bestow upon us.
>
> Rick Anderson
> Interim Dean, J. Willard Marriott Library
> University of Utah
> [log in to unmask]