RE: open access to dissertations

["Michael Zeoli" <mzeoli@ybp.com>]

This is an excellent perspective and points to the *many* 
benefits and opportunities for publishers and libraries alike of 
new technology. Sandy and Joe have talked about reviews (eg 
Choice) and marketing. Choice is an effective review source, but 
only 6-months+ after publication. The first 'bite of the apple' 
has been missed for the presses. Integrated eApproval Plans are 
growing.  If the eFormat is not available, the funds are spent on 
other titles from other publishers who are making current content 
available.  Choice review or not, the opportunities for many 
titles are diminished if choice of formats and models is not 
available at time of publication.

PDA gives libraries and publishers a 'second bite of the apple,' 
but this time with the number of library 'selectors' multiplied 
by thousands. If the discovery records are enriched with 
searchable TOCs, that power is multiplied further and 
significantly.

In implementing PDA (both print and e), at least some libraries 
are planning to use the purchase & usage information to evaluate 
their approval plans, ie is our plan not covering an area in 
demand or is there not sufficient demand to warrant our plan's 
coverage in certain areas?  It will be interesting to see how all 
the new eTools affect sales and use of various types of materials 
in academic libraries.

eContent changes many factors in the equation of who should be 
buying what and for what purpose. Some questions I have are:

1)How has the 'trendiness' of PDA unbalanced an overarching 
strategy for layering the collection development tools available 
for print and ebooks? How can PDA mesh with the approval book or 
slip plan(s)? What about integrated eApproval for core areas? 
And how to fit in collections and packages? And subscription 
opportunities?

2)And speaking of university presses, how does an approval plan 
for university press titles compare with buying a collection of 
university press titles? Integrated eAP for UPs provides the 
eContent that fits the library's profile, essentially building a 
tailored collection. Does the library have or want control over 
a prefabricated 'collection'?  And how are the titles not 
included in the publisher collection managed?  In the end, what 
are the costs?

3)Duplication control?  How are PDA, Approval, series, 
collections, print & e duplication managed?

4)How are records being managed? (discovery records, MARC 
records, electronic invoicing records, TOC enrichment to enhance 
discovery, removal of records) What is 'good enough' and how 
much customization is required? And libraries must inform this 
discussion: partnerships are needed, but which ones are most 
useful?

There has to be at least one dissertation topic in all this! 
But who will publish it? (And who will buy it is what the 
publishers are wondering :-)

Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Laura Bowering
Mullen
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 8:39 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: open access to dissertations

Of course, the library and publishing communities will have new 
data to analyze soon as libraries move into greater participation 
in patron driven acquisitions programs. If the records for any or 
all of these categories of books (based on dissertations) are 
dumped into library catalogs, we will see what the traffic looks 
like from the reader side. We have always had interlibrary loan 
statistics with which to work, and circulation figures after the 
fact, but it will be interesting to see the results of allowing 
library users to drive some of the monograph acquisition 
"decision-making" up front. Some libraries may be willing to 
start with a more expansive profile than what they've used for 
their approval plans-and include more of the dissertation-related 
titles. The results of including patron driven acquisitions in 
collection development practices may be instructive for testing 
what we think we know about what readers want to access from the 
library.

The results of "patron driven" have so much to do with content is 
made available, print and/or electronic preferences, the 
discoverability of the material in catalogs, the amount of 
management/oversight needed by the librarians, budget -and so 
many more factors.

On another note, and as always, collaboration between publishers 
and librarians is always more productive than the "blame game."

Laura Mullen

Laura Bowering Mullen
Behavioral Sciences Librarian
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Library of Science and Medicine
Piscataway, NJ
lbmullen@rci.rutgers.edu