From: "Hamaker, Charles" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 05:00:34 +0000

Ultimately, whether it's a revised dissertation or an Edwin Mellen
press title is irregardless if the decision is that the item fits the
needs of the library, the institution, or its users. Though I don't
like buying certain presses, certain types of publication titles,
certain formats, certain classes of material- undergraduate textbooks
for example,  if the book fits , it gets acquired no matter what I
think of the author, the publisher the distributor, or just about
anything else.  If its a local topic again another example, I'll
probably buy it whether I like the author's politics, religion or
perspective, disagree or not with the author's conclusions or
theoretical approach. And the same goes for a book by anyone, by any
press and almost any format I can count on surviving if it fits.

And yes that's a professional judgement call. . I'm also adamantly
opposed for a mutli-user library to purchase single user e-books or
etitles with high multiples of the list price for simultaneous users,
but even there, I would contradict my own biases if the title were a
fit for the collection's specific goals serving specific user needs or
collection goals and only available under my least preferable
situation. I'll probably get in hot water for saying this, but I do
believe professional unbiased (or at least recognizing your own biases
and guarding against them) title selection for  acquisition  for
libraries by librarians is still one of the highest and truest
callings in our field.

Yes we have automatic gathering plans, and for what they do they are
an excellent option. There are PDA plans, and a host of other ways to
acquire books. But ultimately a library and its users, current and
future are well served by a conscientious decision maker, a selector
or liaison or bibliographer whatever the title, who understands the
needs and goals of the library, the library's limitations and
strengths, both technical and philosophical and  relevant
institutional goals.

Chuck Hamaker
________________________________________
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