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