Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRupp-Serrano, Karen
dc.contributor.authorWaller, Jen
dc.date.accessioned2018-07-05T20:27:34Z
dc.date.available2018-07-05T20:27:34Z
dc.date.issued2018-05-18
dc.identifier.citationRupp-Serrano, K. & Waller, J., (2018). Dissertation-to-Book Publication Patterns Among a Sample of R1 Institutions. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. 6(1), p.eP2187. DOI: http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2187en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11244/300863
dc.description.abstractINTRODUCTION: A common concern about openly available electronic theses and dissertations is that their “openness” will prevent graduate student authors from publishing their work commercially in the future. A handful of studies have explored aspects of this topic; this study reviewed dissertation-to-book publication patterns at Carnegie Classification R1 academic institutions. METHODS: This study analyzed over 23,000 dissertations from twelve U.S. universities to determine how frequently dissertations were subsequently published as books matching the original dissertation in pagination, chapters, and subject matter. WorldCat and several other resources were used to make publication determinations. RESULTS: Across the sample set, a very small percentage of dissertations were published as books that matched the original dissertation on pagination, chapters, and subject matter. The average number of years for dissertations in the study to be published as books was determined for broad subject categories and for select academic disciplines. Results were compared across public and private institutions, and books that were self-published or published by questionable organizations were identified. DISCUSSION: Dissertation-to-book trends occur primarily in the social sciences, humanities, and arts. With dissertations for which the author is actively working to publish as a book, the commonly offered 6- to 24-month embargo periods appear sufficient, provided that extensions or renewals continue to be available. CONCLUSION: This study has implications for librarians providing services to graduate students, faculty advisors, and graduate colleges/schools in regard to dissertation embargo lengths, self-publishing, and what we have termed questionable publishers, as these areas continue to provide opportunities for librarians to educate these stakeholders.en_US
dc.languageen_USen_US
dc.rightsAttribution 3.0 United States*
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/*
dc.subjectInformation Science.en_US
dc.subjectEducation, Higher.en_US
dc.subjectdissertationsen_US
dc.subjectbook publishingen_US
dc.subjectself publishingen_US
dc.subjectquestionable publishersen_US
dc.subjectdissertation embargoesen_US
dc.subjectETDen_US
dc.subjectopen accessen_US
dc.subjectpredatory publishersen_US
dc.subjectscholarly publishingen_US
dc.subjectscholarly communicationen_US
dc.titleDissertation-to-Book Publication Patterns Among a Sample of R1 Institutionsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.description.peerreviewYesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewnotesJLSC uses a double anonymous review process for peer-reviewed submissions, meaning the authors' and reviewers' identities are not revealed to each other during review. For articles where it would be difficult to fully anonymize the author, we allow authors to opt into a semi-anonymous review, where the author's affiliation is not anonymized in the manuscript. In no case is the author's name shared with the reviewers. Published articles will indicate which type of review the article underwent (semi- or fully anonymous). The editor(s) will perform an initial review of all submitted manuscripts and may reject papers that are clearly outside of the scope of the journal. Manuscripts within the scope will be sent to at least two reviewers. Reviewers will not receive or be able to view any documentation or metadata that includes individually identifiable author information. Authors will be provided with similarly anonymized reviewer comments to aid in the revision of their manuscripts. The review and revision process takes, on average, twelve weeks, with an initial decision within 5 weeks. Authors may not submit the manuscript to other publications while a review is in progress.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.7710/2162-3309.2187en_US
ou.groupOtheren_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


Attribution 3.0 United States
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution 3.0 United States