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