ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 6 2 0 /C&RL News • June 2001 CONFERENCE CIRCUIT Do ETDs deter publishers? Coverage from the 4th international symposium on ETDs by G ail M cM illan A continuing topic o f discussion in the Electronic Theses and Dissertation (ETD) community, involving Graduate School adm in­ istrators, research faculty, an d librarians, is whether publishers and editors o f scholarly journals view theses an d dissertations readily available on the Internet and through conve­ nient Web browsers, as prior publications. At ETDs 2001 conference1, the results of a survey of journal publishers an d editors was followed by a panel presentation by publish­ ers’ representatives a n d a lively discussion in­ volving the audience an d the presenters. Using the Web survey, initially developed by Joan Dalton (University of W indsor) and reported on at ETDs 2000, Nan Seamans (Vir­ ginia Tech) surveyed editors and publishers of science and technology studies (STS) jour­ nals. She chose this contingency because gradu­ ate students in the STS program at Virginia Tech have b ee n veiy vocal about ETDs, since they becam e aw are of the requirem ent in 1997. An STS student, querying h er faculty and fellow graduate students, com piled a list of journals they w o u ld consider for subm ission o f articles a n d m onographs. Seam ans co n ­ tacted those publishers a n d journal editors about h er survey b y e-mail.2 T he m ajority o f S eam an s’ re sp o n d e n ts w ere nonprofit publishers an d re p o rted that they h ad som e k in d of policy o n prior publi­ cation a n d sim u ltan e o u s subm ission. The majority did not, how ever, have a policy that referred to w ork that m ay have also been electronically accessible o n th e Web. Why d id n ’t they have a policy? B ecause m an u ­ scripts are h an d led o n an individual basis, existing policy ap p lied to W eb-based publi­ cations by implication, or editorial policy had n ot b e e n set. Publishers' views on "prior publication" Seamans received com pleted surveys or e ­ mail responses from 55% o f the 141 journal publishers contacted. Only 15 of th e survey respondents (18%) said that according to their editorial policy, ETDs constitute prior publi­ cation (slightly few er th a n D a lto n ’s 14%). Therefore, the problem is not so large as many seem to feel it is. Ninety-four p ercen t (94%) of D alton’s re­ sp o n d en ts stated that their journals h ad poli­ cies o n prior publication explicitly stated in “G uidelines to C ontributors.” However, 68% of th e 1999 survey re sp o n d en ts stated that th ese policies d id n o t specifically refer to w orks that w ere p o sted o n the Web or made available electronically. F ourteen percent of those surveyed stated that they w ould not publish w orks derived from ETDs. With 86% potentially accepting articles subm itted from About the autnor Gail McMillan is director o f the Digital Library and Archives at Virginia Tech University, e-mail: gailmac@vt. edu C&RL News ■ June 2001 / 621 ETDs, she concluded that there is more a perception of a problem than actual evidence of a problem. The publishers panel Following Seamans’ presentation, the pub­ lishers panel pre sen ted publication p oli­ cies with particular regard to ETDs. Rep­ re se n ta tiv e s from E lsevier S cience an d Academic Press generated a lively discus­ sion am ong the audience of 30. Keith Jones (Elsevier) stated em phati­ cally that his com pany encourages its a u ­ thors to link their articles in Elsevier jour­ nals to their personal Web sites and a u ­ thorizes their departm ents to provide such links. Jones re p o rted that Elsevier u n d e r­ stands the im portance of getting new a u ­ thors, such as graduate students, to p u b ­ lish in Elsevier journals early in their ca­ reers because they are then likely to co n ­ tinue to publish there. He poin ted out that publishing in an Elsevier journal is an im­ portant source of validation for academ ics so that the su b seq u en t availability of those articles from o th er nonprofit and ed u c a­ tional sources is not a threat. The audience learn ed from Jo h n Elliott (Academic Press) that this publisher has a similarly liberal policy, w hich allows au­ thors to link their articles to their personal Web sites even though the authors assigned copyright to the publisher. Coincidentally, Elsevier Science may acquire Academic Press (i.e., H arcourt Brace) in the n ear fu­ ture. Elliott also p o in ted out that the p eer review that journal articles receive is not the sam e sort of review that ETDs get. Questions and comments from the audi­ ence included discussions of university press policies and a plea from BioMed Central to abandon overpriced academic journals for the new breed of online scholarly communications. Notes 1. Handouts from the symposium are avail­ able at http://library.caltech.edu/etd/. 2. S u rv ey re s u lts a re a v a ila b le at http://lum iere. lib.vt.edu/surveys/results/. ETDs not a deterrent to publication In a survey administered at the end of the ETD submission process, the majority of graduate student authors at Virginia Tech reported that the decision to limit access to their ETDs was based on advice from their faculty advisors. John Eaton, Virginia Tech Graduate School, surveyed graduate student alumni (in 1998 and 1999) about publishing ar­ ticles derived from their ETDs. He found that 100% of those w ho had successfully published did not have problems getting published because their theses or disser­ tations were online and readily available on the Internet. Therefore, in looking at the results of the Dalton and Seaman surveys in combi­ nation with Virginia Tech’s surveys of gradu­ ate student alumni, the ready availability of ETDs on the Internet does not deter the vast majority of publishers from publishing articles derived from graduate research al­ ready available on the Internet. ■ ( “Strategic . . continued fro m page 618) Let us all strive to be cosmopolitans as we look forward, envision new possibilities, and embrace a variety of mutually beneficial stra­ tegic partnerships on behalf of our libraries. Notes 1. Peter F. Dmcker, Management Challenges fo r the 21st Century (New York: Harper Busi­ ness, 1999), 183- 2. Hannelore B. Rader, “A New Academic Library Model: Partnerships for Learning and Teaching,” C&RL News 62, no. 4 (April 2001): 393-96. 3. Gail R. Gilbert, “Courting Athletics, Cre­ ating Partnerships,” Library Administration & Management 14, no. 1 (Winter 2000), 35-37. 4. Melba Jesudason, “Outreach to Student-Ath­ letes Through E-Mail Reference Service,” Refer­ ence Services Review 28, no. 3 (2000), 262-67. 5. Nancy Allen and Liz Bishoff, “Academic Library/Museum Collaboration: I’m OK, You’re OK,” Proceedings o f the ACRL 10th National Conference, March 15-18, 2001 (Chicago: ACRL, 2001), 59-69. 6. Rosabeth Moss Kanter, “World Class Lead­ ers” The Leader o f the Future (San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1996), 91. ■ http://library.caltech.edu/etd/ http://lumiere lib.vt.edu/surveys/results/ 622 / C&RL News ■ June 2001