From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]> Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2014 12:34:13 -0700 We don't discuss here the "poor quality books" but namely "specialized books," which are those few are interested in and which are produced to obtain the tenure. I would coin a term "unnecessary books" or "unnecessary to publish books". If Rick Anderson can design the right method to assess the problem and share it with others, then a group of different libraries can provide a good randomized sample, enhancing his conclusion. Such a result can be noticed by policy makers. Ari Belenkiy On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 9:05 AM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > From: Fred Jenkins <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 11:19:11 -0400 > > I don't think most of us are confusing specialized with poor quality. > I work in classics, so I see a lot of very good work with a very > limited audience. In general, there is a fair amount of mediocre and > some outright bad scholarship floating around (just look at all the > retractions in peer-reviewed science/social sicence journals in recent > years). But for monographs, the problem really is that they have > become too expensive and too specialized for the current distribution > system. It doesn't make economic sense for 100-200 libraries all to > buy monographs that might only be used in 5-10 of them. The U presses > have largely been supported on the library side by approval plans and > standing orders that bought first and asked questions later. > Shrinking budgets require asking the questions first. > > Fred W. Jenkins, Ph.D. > Professor and Associate Dean for Collections and Operations > University of Dayton Libraries > Dayton, OH 45469-1360 > > > > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:18 AM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > From: ANTHONY WATKINSON <[log in to unmask]> > > Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 11:04:38 +0100 > > > > I agree very much with Rick's last sentence. Back in 2001 I wrote a > > report (available still) on Electronic Solutions to Problems of > > Monograph Publishing. One idea was that e-only books would save enough > > money (no print) to make some books publishable on economic grounds > > which could not be published in a print version. Many of us at that > > stage were over-optimistic and in any case no-one was doing e-only and > > no authors wanted if unless they were very desperate indeed and there > > was the question of tenure committees sniffing at e-only. As we know > > and as Sandy would/will point out most of the costs are before print - > > and POD is much more developed than it was then though even then Sven > > Fund announced POD as the way of the future. > > > > However I was once a research student in the humanities in a sub-sub > > division of history. If I had finished by dissertation (instead of > > becoming a librarian and then a publisher) my book would have been > > difficult to place - even if it was good scholarship. The numbers > > interested would have been too low. A specialised book is not the same > > as an unscholarly book. I have a feeling that some of the librarians > > posting have conflated poor books with books that have a small > > audience. I suspect that they cannot judge the difference (usually) > > but it is important in my view to make the distinction. > > > > > > > > From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> > > Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 14:24:51 +0000 > > > > >If that were the case, then some books presumably would have sold ONLY > > >to libraries. > > > > No, that doesn¹t follow. A book that "virtually no one needs to use or > > wants to read" may be purchased by a bunch of libraries and a handful of > > individuals. "Virtually no one" is an intentionally imprecise phrase. The > > question isn¹t whether these books are completely useless to everyone in > > the world. The question is whether they offer enough value to a large > > enough number of people to justify the cost and effort of publishing them > > in the traditional way. > > > > --- > > Rick Anderson > > Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources & Collections > > Marriott Library, University of Utah > > [log in to unmask]