From: Laura Quilter <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 18:17:21 -0400


This is the disconnect I see everywhere: mss based on dissertations,
conflated routinely with OA to dissertations (or other materials, such
as journal articles).

AHA's statement targeted only OA for dissertations, and discussed only
the  bad consequences -- not the potential good consequences laid out
elsewhere in some responses.  Evidence cited in the FAQ is purely
anecdotal, and, I would say, not exactly strongly supportive even as
anecdotal support.

I applaud the AHA for its motives, but frankly I'm disappointed in its
methodology.



On Jul 29, 2013 6:09 PM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 18:26:49 -0400
>
> I have not seen a systematic study, but I personally have been told by
> U. press editors, directors, and editorial board members that they
> frowned on publishing books based on dissertations.
>
> The AHA response to this may be ham-fisted, but it's not unconnected to reality.
>
> Joe Esposito