From: Alex Holzman <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 21:46:59 -0400

Rick,

You're right about the thread getting a bit old, but I hope you and
others will excuse my extending it just a little bit further.  Perhaps
I missed it, but nowhere in the discussion do I recall seeing explicit
reasons why librarians want to know whether or not a book is a revised
dissertation in order to make a decision on whether to add it to a
collection.  I understand the need to label unrevised dissertations
(let's just call them dissertations) and I understand and everyone
seems to agree that they will be purchased much less frequently than
monographs and that that is both understandable and even desirable.
But what distinguishes a revised dissertation from any other monograph
vis-a-vis a decision to add it to a collection?  Do some libraries
really only collect the work of senior scholars in particular fields?
If that's not the distinction made, what does the information that it
is a revised dissertation contribute to the decision to buy?

I've never gone out of my way to conceal that a book we publish is a
revised dissertation (I can't imagine publishing an unrevised one),
though I confess we don't shout it out either.  Understanding why
librarians care about this status would be helpful.

Thanks,

Alex Holzman
Director
Temple University Press
Email: [log in to unmask]
Philadelphia, PA 19122

On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:23 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:41:52 +0000
>
> >That's a misrepresentation of my argument because ONLY in the case of
> >revised dissertations, not other kinds of books, are there real
> >consequences for junior faculty authors if those librarians who decide
> >against ordering revised dissertations just because they are based on
> >dissertations are presented with that information.  No other authors
> >are vulnerable to this kind of decision based on lack of information.
>
> I'm sure everyone is sick of this thread by now, but I'm concerned that
> publishers following it will be misled by Sandy's misinformed statements
> and implications about how libraries select books. Let me try to clarify.
> (And let me emphasize that I'm speaking here purely as a librarian, and
> not on behalf of any vendor.)
>
> Libraries set up approval plans for two reasons. They are designed, first,
> to include books that are obviously needed (thus freeing up librarians'
> scarce time so they can spend it seeking out titles that are more obscure
> or harder to get) and, second, to exclude books that, though they may be
> of high quality, are not a good fit for the library's particular needs
> (thus letting the library focus its scarce budget dollars on the
> acquisition of books that it needs more urgently). If libraries had
> infinite budgets and infinite staff time, approval plans would not be
> needed. Sadly, we have neither, so books have to be excluded as well as
> included.
>
> Sandy, you're right that senior faculty are less likely than junior
> faculty to publish dissertation-based books. However, given the central
> importance of UP publication for tenure-seeking faculty in most humanities
> and social-science disciplines, junior faculty will be hurt
> disproportionately whenever a UP book is excluded for ANY reason --
> whether it's because the book is on a marginal topic, or is a collection
> of previously-published essays, or is dissertation-based, or for whatever
> other reason. If you're going to conceal the fact that a book is
> dissertation-based in order to protect the interests of junior faculty,
> then you'd better not tell your vendors anything at all about any of your
> books, because the more information you provide, the more likely it is
> that a library will exclude it. This strategy may indeed protect the
> immediate interests of the author as author (and it certainly protects the
> interest of the publisher), but it goes against the author's interests as
> a researcher who relies on access to a library collection tailored to his
> or her interests and needs.
>
> The great majority of libraries do not exclude revised dissertations from
> approval coverage, and no library relies entirely on approval plans to
> select books for its collection. Will identifying a book as a revised
> dissertation tend to drive down its aggregate sales numbers? Yes, a little
> bit. But so will identifying it as virtually anything else, because these
> non-subject criteria are designed as filters. Any argument against
> identifying dissertation-based books is, therefore (and whether you intend
> it to be or not), an argument against providing libraries any information
> at all. But tricking libraries into buying books they don't intend to buy
> hurts everyone in the long run, even if it seems to help authors (and
> publishers) in the short run.
>
> ---
> Rick Anderson
> Interim Dean, J. Willard Marriott Library
> University of Utah
> [log in to unmask]