tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030220433025894048.post5454129631141580563..comments2023-11-03T08:02:25.369-04:00Comments on AmericanScience: A Team Blog: Academic Publishing, the AHA, and the Ratchet EffectDavid Roth Singermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12841041983824755867noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030220433025894048.post-79107126992880232212013-07-28T21:15:37.577-04:002013-07-28T21:15:37.577-04:00The thinking on this issue certainly needs to be a...The thinking on this issue certainly needs to be a lot more flexible, and the professional societies ought to be taking a stronger lead in making it so. Although I haven't surveyed all the online responses to the AHA statement, one sacred cow I haven't seen questioned is the basic value of the intimacy of the relationship between historians and university publishing houses. This relationship should continue, because books are an appropriate outlet for much scholarship. I think my own book ought to be a book, but mainly because this is the best way to get it read by people in the professions that I write about. These people will never read my dissertation, and precious few will read any of my articles.<br /><br />That said, a lot of scholarship (including much of my own work) is primarily of purely historical interest. Right now we shunt this material through publishers, because this is important from a career-building perspective. But publishers don't really like this sort of material because it doesn't sell, and scholars will feel the stresses of finding publishers who will publish it, as well as pressure from publishers who do show interest to make it more sellable. Rather than trying awkwardly to pretend that this work is *both* scholarly and of broad interest, shouldn't this work simply be eligible for scholarly rewards on its own terms? Further, is this not the sort of work that needs to make its way to other historians as quickly as possible so that it can be used? Is there really sufficient value added that it is worth putting years of additional work into it to add "polish" before it can be readily discovered and accessed by other historians? Shouldn't scholars be rewarded for making it available as *quickly* as possible, and rewarded extra specially for inventing new scholarly mechanisms for disseminating it to the audiences who need it?<br /><br />I have no problem, given present realities, with students being permitted to embargo their work. But it seems to me that universities that insist that students' work be made available are actively encouraging the treatment of scholarly labor as *scholarship* (i.e., a useful contribution to a body of working knowledge), where the professional societies and publishing houses have colluded to treat scholarly labor as merely steps in the entry into a club, which seem to be taken, often but not always, at the expense of scholarship (see Lee, above, on norms)?Will Thomashttp://etherwave.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030220433025894048.post-39337595161117630362013-07-25T16:04:16.810-04:002013-07-25T16:04:16.810-04:00And then, in contrast to your post, there is this ...And then, in contrast to your post, there is this fairly poorly-informed take on the subject!: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/07/youve-spent-years-on-your-phd-should-you-publish-it-online-for-free/278024/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030220433025894048.post-39765671223926276822013-07-25T09:10:42.337-04:002013-07-25T09:10:42.337-04:00Thanks for your comments, Megan & Lee. My own...Thanks for your comments, Megan & Lee. My own sense about the reluctance of presses to publish books based on freely available dissertations is similar to Megan's -- based on a handful of personal conversations with editors, my sense is that some do indeed care whether a version of your book is already available online. But others care much less. So I think it really depends on the specifics: what you are writing about, what press you are talking to, etc. <br /><br />So although I totally share Lee's dislike of embargoes (and paywalls!), I will also admit that I embargoed my own dissertation for the maximum allowable time.<br /><br />But I think Megan's bigger point is both correct and important: my own information largely comes from personal and informal conversations with friends, colleagues, and editors. There should be a more open, systematic, and transparent discussion about publishing in graduate school.<br /><br />As for the question of what kind of book to write -- more detailed and theoretical or more broad and synthetic -- I think the answer again depends on the specific details involved. I will, however, venture to make the following general claim:<br /><br />My own view is that one reason to write books rather than journal articles is that books have at least the potential to reach a somewhat wider audience. Another reason is that books allow you to develop a more complex and sustained argument. So I guess that I feel that if your book is a series of loosely connected case studies rather than a unified and somewhat more broadly appealing narrative, it may make more sense to publish your dissertation as a series of journal articles instead. And, as a consequence, I also think we should be more open to tenuring scholars who publish scholarly essays (online!) rather than books.Lukashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05686764806913124506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030220433025894048.post-15626322186581970612013-07-24T13:30:00.685-04:002013-07-24T13:30:00.685-04:00Anecdotal evidence: At a brownbag panel on publish...Anecdotal evidence: At a brownbag panel on publishing a couple years ago at my grad program, one major publisher explicitly said she was not interested if the dissertation was online or if substantial portions were published as articles--articles should be cross-cutting and not give away your central argument. <br />So, I did put a 1 year embargo on my dissertation and may renew it, even though the book will be very, very much revised from it. I'm happy to send the darned thing to anyone who asks for it, though, which somewhat assuages my guilty conscience.<br />I think a lot of grads don't get much guidance on this issue and tend to make last-minute decisions on the fly. At my school, there was no automatic way to get an embargo, you had to write a letter asking for one––something I only found out through word of mouth, which some recent grads knew, others didn't. Whether you like embargos or not, that is not an ideal system. So, I'm glad to see this post. The "ratchet effect" captures this perfectly.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030220433025894048.post-61875224732429811802013-07-24T12:41:01.216-04:002013-07-24T12:41:01.216-04:00Thanks for your post, Lukas. This is an important ...Thanks for your post, Lukas. This is an important topic. <br /><br />I wonder, do we have evidence--even of the anecdotal sort--of publishers turning down books because dissertations are available?<br /><br />It also seems like we should examine what it means today to turn a dissertation into a book. Whether we go with the 5-year PhD model or the one we have now, should a book just be a polished up dissertation? Or should it be considerably changed, through deepening and/or expanding? Many books on the market do seem like dissertations that have had a bit of "detail work" done. Not sure this is a good thing. I know that you have decided to write a big synthetic work on paleontology; I am doing the same with automobiles. But many people tell me not to do that but rather to turn out a theory heavy, short STS book. Perhaps you've received similar advice, or at least advice to write a book that is just your dissertation with a slight face lift. <br /><br />I have always disliked embargoes. I believe they are unethical. They conflict with (Mertonian) norms that are worth defending, and they play into historians' well-known obsessiveness and penchants for secrecy, especially about sources. Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14164091550633430973noreply@blogger.com