RE: open access to dissertations

[Sandy Thatcher <sandy.thatcher@alumni.princeton.edu>]

Mike, since the problem is larger than any one press or any one 
library, maybe there needs to be some larger sharing of aggregate 
data with associations like the AAUP, ARL, and ACLS, which 
then--depending on what the data show--might join forces to 
approach administrators (through the AAU?) if this problem seems 
to be continuing and serious.

I think what happens is that, for most books based on 
dissertations, the most highly specialized get filtered out by 
the acquiring editors, so that what actually gets published is 
more like other monographs written later on in a scholar's 
career.

I'm wondering if the "highly specialized" books you are talking 
about as not selling swell at all are really best described that 
way, or whether it is the field to which they contribute that 
itself may be small and highly specialized. This has been a 
recurrent problem ever since university presses began talking 
about "endangered species" back in the late 1970s. It is similar 
to the problem universities face in keeping open departments that 
teach subjects appealing to only a small number of students, such 
as some of the foreign languages in less common use.

Sandy Thatcher


>Sandy,
>
>One correction to the number of Revised Dissertations YBP 
>profiled from PSUP in 2010: it was 8, not 17 - and 3 were 
>related to Latin American studies.
>
>As for the rest, I've shared as many numbers as I can in an open 
>list.  It is a bit disheartening to see how some decisions in 
>publishing are being made. As in politics, themes that strike a 
>chord are repeated till they gain a mantle of truth. Remember 
>the Josh Billings quote: "It ain't what you don't know that gets 
>ya, but what you think you know for sure, but just ain't so." 
>You write:" I hope YPB will make a habit of tracking these data 
>over time so that we can better gauge how serious a problem this 
>is."
>
>We do, and always have. When presses ask, we're happy to share 
>the data. We have regular visits from presses to look more 
>deeply into processes and data together. And these data 
>(acquisitions by publisher and other categories) are shared and 
>discussed with libraries on every visit to review their approval 
>plans. The number of Revised Dissertations being published has 
>certainly grown over the past decade (I did look at those 
>numbers).  I have not had time to look at how library 
>acquisition of these titles has trended, but even in a "bad" 
>year such as 2010, the data show that these titles, from 
>university presses, have done well compared with other UP 
>titles.  This supports your position that these are good 
>scholarly titles and not too narrow or specialized. It also 
>confirms that libraries know it and are acquiring these titles 
>without prejudice (again, for Trade presses, it's a different 
>consideration).
>
>On a somewhat heartening note, and completely unrelated to 
>dissertations, there are titles being published for little if 
>any commercial benefit by the university press.  Sales are 
>dismal. Libraries are not buying them because they truly are 
>highly specialized, but the titles are unique and important to 
>scholarship.  It would be worthwhile to explore ways to give 
>these titles (which I won't name for fear of 'killing' them) 
>greater reach.
>
>Mike
>
>________________________________
>
>From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of Sandy Thatcher
>Sent: Tue 4/19/2011 11:08 PM
>To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
>Subject: RE: open access to dissertations
>
>That's helpful to know, Mike, and I can take some encouragement
>from these data. However, my own snapshot of one field for Penn
>State over a much more extended period of time did bear out the
>statistic that Helmut had given me, showing a 20% to 25% lower
>sale for revised dissertations than for other titles.  I hope YPB
>will make a habit of tracking these data over time so that we can
>better gauge how serious a problem this is. Meanwhile though, i
>can already tell you that fewer acquiring editors are considering
>fewer revised dissertations for publication, based on anecdotal
>evidence from conversations with editors at other presses.
>
>Sandy Thatcher