From: Michael Zeoli <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 02:31:33 +0000

We had this discussion, i.e. Revised Dissertations vs. Unrevised
Dissertations, a couple of years ago.  The distinction is a critical
one in terms of Approval Plans and library purchasing generally.
Revised Dissertations are not penalized by most academic libraries in
terms of approval plan filtering.  In fact they sell only very
slightly below the average university press monograph.  I provided
data supporting this in regard to academic library sales in that
series of posts.  This is urban legend.

The designation of 'Revised Dissertation' conveys a sense that the
treatment of the subject will likely be in depth.  This is supported -
or not - by other profiling information such as readership level and
'select category'.

********************************
Michael Zeoli
Vice President, Strategic eContent Development
& Partner Relations
YBP Library Services
em: [log in to unmask]

On Apr 22, 2013, at 9:11 PM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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]