College and Research Libraries Scholarly Reprint Publishing in the United States: A New L.ook Joseph C. Meredith Results of a 1969 survey by Carol A. Nemeyer of scholarly reprint activity in the United States are reviewed in the light of subsequent trends. It is concluded that although replication of the survey is not warranted at this time, certain aspects of the genre merit continued study. The important role of academic librarians in scholarly reprint selection is stressed. hirteen years ago Carol A. Ne- out of print was inspired not so much by meyer published Scholarly Re- production breakthroughs as by the pre- print Publishing in the United vailing drive of many academic libraries States, 1 which was adapted (some in newly founded institutions) to from her doctoral dissertation on the same fill gaps and enrich their collections. This subject. 2 The work was generally hailed as drive was fostered to some extent by in- timely and useful, not only as an overview terinstitutional rivalry in a climate of rela- of the burgeoning reprint industry but tive affluence. Publishers were further also as an aid to librarians involved in rna- stimulated by the active interest in re- terials selection and acquisition. Since prints shown by the American Library As- then, some of the trends noted by Ne- sociation before it became apparent that meyer have run their course, while certain such stimulus was hardly needed. technical and financial changes have a£- Although reprints were not a new fected the policies and practices of collec- genre, the sudden growth of the market tion building. Indeed, it has been sug- after World War II tended to make them gested that the current situation differs operate as such. This led entrepreneurs to sufficiently from the time of the original engage in lively guessing games with no research (1968-70) to justify mounting an clear idea of what was needed, how to set entirely new study. press runs, how to price the product, and Before addressing this question, it will how to meet certain bibliographic obliga- be useful to describe the original problem tions . Each publisher kept his own coun- and methodology employed by Nemeyer. sel, so the investigator had to extract bits As she indicated at the time, "Reprint of information that, taken together, could publishing was found to be plagued by, be coherently summed up. To this end and partly responsible for, serious infor- Nemeyer conducted personal interviews mation gaps which cloaked the industry with 37 publishers involved in the kind of with a veil of mystery,'' making it difficult scholarly programs that fell within the to find out if a particular title had been re- scope of her study, plus about 53 other printed, by whom, in what format, and at persons in the book trades and the library what price.3 The sudden interest of pub- world. She addressed a twenty-nine-item lishers in reissuing important works long questionnaire to an additional 250 pub- Joseph C. Meredith is a retired university professor in infonnation science, Governors State University, Uni- versity Park, Illinois 64066. 133 134 College & Research Libraries lishers. There were 159 returns. All but 31 were within scope. As a result, she was able to compile a directory of about 300 re- print publishers, listing for each the name, address, director, date of founding, for- mats issued, forms issued, total number of issuances up through 1970, primary fields of interest, and (if applicable) CIP and ISBN information. The resultant ''Direc- tory of Reprint Publishers"4 filled a defi- nite need, for in the absence of any associ- ation of reprint publishers, nothing of the sort had been compiled up to that time. Other data derived from the interviews and questionnaire returns, and from the secondary and trade literature, were com- bined and interpreted to develop conclu- sions set forth under programs, editorial practices, production practices, marketing and distribution, and the mutual concerns of reprinters and librarians. The scope of the survey was a trouble- ~ome issue. Although Nemeyer recog- nized the growing importance of foreign and international reprinting, ''for practi- cal reasons" she focused on reprint pub- lishing in the United States. In the micro- form area, because of the rapid proliferation of materials, she included only nongovernmental microrepublishing specialists. She also excluded mass- market paperback titles because ''the pub- lishing concept, target audience, and dis- tribution methods differ significantly from specialist reprint publishing.''5 Scholarly publishers were identified by Nemeyer as those "who specialize in the republication of books of scholarship and other OP materials intended for sale pri- marily, but not exclusively, to libraries and other educational institutions" and works ''of interest to scholars and other serious readers. ''6 All of this bothered the reviewers. Nevertheless, the general con- sensus on the study was as follows: "of extreme value and by far the most compre- hensive on the subject ever compiled, " 7 ''a valuable addition to the literature,''8 ''a welcome contribution on a significant de- velopment in modern publishing,''9 and an aid to ''both the librarian and the re- print publisher. ''10 The book did not purport to be a librari- an's guide to reprint selection. It simply March 1985 presented a picture of the reprint industry and its practitioners. During the 1960s a lively interest in re- prints and reprinting was reflected in the literature. Nemeyer made good use of this interest. There has been a notable falling off of the number of journal articles on the subject since then, although the reasons are not altogether apparent, considering that reprinting has become a major com- ponent of the industry. The few articles that have appeared tend merely to restate issues already discussed by Nemeyer, such as • the need for more disciplined choice of titles to reprint, in order to minimize du- plication and to forestall unnecessary reprinting of materials readily available in the used-book trade; • the need for more consistent pricing practices; • the need for reproduction standards (format, size, identification); and • the need for more comprehensive re- view services. At this point one may ask what, if any- thing, has changed? Have any of the prob- lems been resolved? Has the industry de- veloped in ways that resist further study of scholarly reprint publishing? What does it all mean to librarians charged with the selection and acquisition of scholarly materials? In her book, Nemeyer raised questions and suggested lines of inquiry for future investigation. She has kindly responded to a letter from this author asking her to comment anew on some of these points. Regarding the scope of the original study, Nemeyer notes that a similar study should have been conducted for the inter- national publishing scene. In any new study, she would probably eliminate mi- croforms because the "industry has changed significantly, a reflection of tech- nology and demand." The 1968-70 survey was never con- ceived or designed as an economic survey of the industry, although its author be- lieved "an up-to-date 'Cheney' report would be welcomed." Now she sees an increasing number of good studies on the economics of publishing and a heightened interest in the subject. This is reflected in the Book Industry Study Group and in the large number of publishing courses being offered. The neglect of adequate bibliographic controls (descriptive and enumerative) by reprinters and reference book publishers alike was a serious problem at the time Scholarly Reprint Publishing in the United States was written. In discussing this, Ne- meyer hoped that in coming of age the re- print industry would devote more atten- tion to bibliographic and cataloging needs. Today her remarks are particularly germane, coming as they do from the van- tage point of her current position in the Li- brary of Congress. Given the relative success of. the cataloging in publication program and the expanded number · of publishers who participate, certainly their awareness of bibliographic and cataloging needs is heightened. I also believe that indexing needs are evermore important and that the publishing industry is gaining awareness of that, pushed by the need to retrieve rather spe- cifically from highly compacted information stored electronically, in databases, on video discs, etc. I believe that publishers will continue to need the library world's expertise in this area. 11 If a new study were to be carried out, it would be interesting to ascertain which publishers make a real effort not only to participate in bibliographic systems but also to ensure that their product is consis- tent with some kind of standard criteria such as those proposed by the Rare Books Libraries Conference on Facsimiles in 1972. 12 One cannot be sure, but there seems some likelihood that reprinters who have become divisions of the large conglomerates would make a good show- ing. To revert to the main question: What is the shape of the reprint industry today? Is it still distinct enough to be studied as a separate entity? Probably not, although to confirm this would entail another survey. Many houses that are generally known for new works and new editions of older works have ventured into the reprint field, either directly or through subsid- iaries, while typical reprint publishers can and often do publish new' works of prom- ise. In other words, the reprint industry as Scholarly Reprint Publishing 135 such seems to have become too amor- phous to perinit a disciplined approach. One effect of this is that there no longer seems to be a need for a separate organiza- . tion of reprinters. 13 This does not mean, however, that re- prints themselves cannot be studied as a genre. Definition of the word reprint remains a problem, as manifested by the assorted versions quoted in appendix A of Nemey- er' s study14 and to the more recent offer- ings of Yanchisen15 and Wiseman. 16 For practical purposes, however, we could say that in order to be considered a re- print, an issuance must faithfully repro- duce in some printed form the text of a sin- gle printed original. Any work reproduced from other than a single printed original would count as an edition rather than are- print, regardless of the presence or ab- sence of new editorial matter. On the other hand, we would not exclude works . enriched by new prefatory materials, such as indexes, as long as the material did not intrude on the pages of reprinted text. Freedman would exclude works issued by the original publisher, but this distinction is not very compelling and runs counter to most trade parlance. Nor is there any point in excluding piracies, which after all were among the forebears of reprinting as we know it and are still with us in some corners of the world. 17 In defining the word scholarly, we should adhere to its Latin roots-the idea of the school and of acquiring knowledge. A book whose subject matter fits this pur- pose, as opposed to one designed to enter- tain or to play on the emotions, is clearly one of scholarship. Publishers themselves seem to have little difficulty distinguish- ing between the two. One need not be confused by scholarly interest in trash, for example Vina Delmar's Bad Girl (New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1928), because in such a case it is the work representing itself that is the object of study; it doesn't stand alone as a scholarly production. In border- line cases, subjective judgment will gov- ern, but the criterion seems valid and will serve for practical purposes. In a study concentrating on scholarly re- . prints as a genre, rather than as a some- 136 College & Research Libraries what casual product of a particular seg- ment of the publishing industry, a shift in emphasis will be inevitable. It will be to- ward the market, toward the customers, chiefly academic libraries and librarians, whose needs and choices determine what can be successfully reprinted and sold. These same customers have heretofore been accorded a rather passive role in the scholarly reprint system. The shift would help deal with the questions posed in 1973 by one writer: Does the demand create the supply; does the supply create the de- mand; or are both elements at work?18 Put another way-What is the nature and ex- tent of the demand in relation to reprint publishing? In her 1969 questionnaire, Nemeyer asked reprint publishers to indicate the primary basis on which they selected titles for publication: (a) personal knowledge of subject fields, (b) awareness of unmet de- mands for copies on the used book mar- ket, (c) appearance of titles on recom- mended book lists, (d) advice from paid consultants, (e) advice from faculty, librar- ians, scholars, and (f) other. 19 The results were inconclusive, as many firms checked more than one category. Many respon- dents claimed to use more subjective crite- ria, such as intuition or feel for the market. Some indicated book-list recommenda- tions as a criterion, but none admitted to using them exclusively. 20 However, book lists were probably used more heavily than indicated, especially in view of the way in which the output of reprint pub- lishers had matched many books listed in Books for College Libraries (B CL). 21 The significance of BCL as an influence on book selection can be traced back to Charles Shaw's original List of Books for College Libraries (1932)22 and its supple- ment (1940). 23 The 1932 list was basically prescriptive, as a determinant in connec- tion with grants in aid to college libraries by the Carnegie Corporation of New York. It was also expected to serve as a selection guide/ 4 the method of compilation, how- ever, left something to be desired. Carnovsky warned, ''It would be ex- tremely dangerous for any librarian to fol- low the list blindly in his purchases, as March 1985 though it were the final authority instead of a first aid. " 25 The introduction to Shaw's Supplement covering the years 1931-38, again pub- lished by the American Library Associa- tion, was silent as to purpose, but the ad- . dition of review citations to most of the , entries seemed to endorse its use as a se- lection tool. The Depression of the 1930s and the exclusion of out-of-print items from the list precluded the kind of re- sponse generated by BCL later on, when new library collections were being cre- ated, old ones enlarged, and reprint pub- lishing became big business. Similarly, , the BCL list originated in a special requirement: to identify about fifty thousand titles for three identical, basic, self-contained libraries for three new cam- puses of the University of California- Irvine, Santa Cruz, and San Diego. Again the American Library Association was the publisher, albeit with a note of caution: This list does not claim to be a list of the best books or basic list for any college library, for se- lection of books for a college library must be made in terms of the needs of that particular in- stitution. 26 However, the list immediately became re- garded as the authoritative selection tool and created an enormous demand for the out-of-print titles that made up 40 percent of all those listed. 27 As asserted in CHOICE, this gladdened "the hearts of re- printers who immediately set about scour- ing the entries for possible publications, while trade houses made plans to reissue various OP titles in their back lists. Voigt and Treyz have influenced needed pub- lishing, and libraries will prosper that much more."28 CHOICE even provided a long list of reissued titles in English and American literature to illustrate the impor- tance of BCL in the reprint field. All this may have been to the good, be- cause of the high quality of the titles se- lected and because the list went through a final revision before publication to make it generally more useful to libraries other than the three for which it was designed. Yet one is tempted to believe that its very excellence may have diminished respect for the art and practice of retrospective book selection performed by librarians. The second edition of BCL appeared in 1975, midpoint in a decade of increasing fi- nancial stringency. It would be interesting to learn what effect the second edition had on retrospective buying and on the pro- grams of reprint publishers. Nemeyer fa- vors such a study. 29 Actually, we need to know much more about how these lists have been used and how they are affected by the march of attrition and decay, as dis- cussed by Gosnell in his review of the Shaw Supplement. 30 Any new study should include an actual sampling of scholarly reprints analyzed according to quantity, quality, price, and such things as • whether or not they have been provided with new introductory material, notes, or indexes; • how they happened to be chosen for re- printing; • status of the original publication; • subject orientation; and • intended audience. One might even conduct a study similar to the one of Leonard Jolley at the University of Western Australia, who randomly chose twelve current reprints, analyzed each in terms of scholarly needs, demand, and alternate availability, and came up with the following tally for the books: 31 • highly specialized and not superseded (1) • already available (2) • of no value (3) • once of unquestioned value but current importance is questionable (3) • value questionable (3) The bibliographical control of reprints is improving, thanks to Guide to Reprints32 and International Bibliography of Reprints. 33 The former includes titles of books and journals submitted by about four hundred republishing firms throughout the world. In order to qualify, the works must be re- produced by photolithography, with no composition involved except for such things as additions to the title page; must not measure less than 75 percent of the size of the original; must be reproduced in an edition of at least two hundred copies; Scholarly Reprint Publishing 137 must be listed in a catalog or leaflet distrib- uted to the general public; and must actu- ally have been reprinted and be available for delivery. For some reason, an earlier requirement that a reprint be bound has been removed. Most entries in the Guide consist only of author, title, date of original publication, name of reprint publisher, price, and ISBN. The International Bibliography of Re- prints has more substantial entries: au- thor, title, complete original imprint, com- plete reprint imprint, pagination, applica- ble series information, and price. Criteria for inclusion are similar, except that re- prints issued by the original publisher are excluded from the International Bibliogra- phy. The Guide is revised and reissued annu- ally, while the International Bibliography is updated by the quarterly Bulletin of Re- prints. By the nature of such things, how- ever, the Guide should be more consis- tently current, since 80 percent of the en- tries in the International Bibliography re- quire some research in addition to reprinter-furnished information. Most librarians with book-selection and collection-building responsibilities have opinions about the flood of reprinters' brochures and catalogs, typically subject- oriented packages that certain publishers seem to think are irresistible. Certainly such a package may simplify crash buying for a new academic program, but this kind of need rarely occurs. Usually close collab- oration between librarian and faculty about appropriate titles is sufficient for de- termining most needs. Without examining individual titles, one cannot ascertain the number of books on the list that have little scholarly merit. Besides, if the subject is of great current in- terest, many of the old standbys are apt to be superseded soon or at least brought up to date in new editions. Also some sub- jects for which demand has increased sharply may just as quickly exhibit a sharp decrease in demand. This happened in the field of Africana: Many publishers rushed headlong into the field with their vision encompassing little more than 138 College & Research Libraries dollar signs. Indicative of this is the widespread misreading of the needs and potential of the market in such reprints . Accordingly, a bubble which rapidly overinflated may now be said to have burst. 34 CONCLUSION A comprehensive survey of scholarly re- printing in the United States similar to that conducted by Carol Nemeyer is not needed and would not be particularly suited to the changes that have taken place over the past fourteen years, such as the gradual emergence of reprinting into the mainstream of publishing, the stabili- zation of production standards and costs, and improved bibliographical coverage. Production and marketing have become so international in scope that any study limited to domestic practice would lose meaning. As has been pointed out, certain areas merit continued study, with perhaps a shift in emphasis away from the industry and toward a better understanding of the reprint genre as an entity and of the ways March 1985 in which the link between users and pro- ducers can be strengthened. The responsibility of library profession- als as users and gatekeepers should be stressed. Indeed, the importance of this role should be emphasized because among the dwindling number of func- tions that automation cannot take over is the ''art and practice'' of book selection. The spate of reprints in the 1960s led Ne- meyer to ask publishers to react to the statement, ''The well is running dry.'' Answers varied from ''yes'' to ''hell, no.'' One respondent even lamented: ''After the Voigt-Treyz book, there is nothing left to do." But several publishers felt certain they could continue to find a market for an old title intelligently chosen. 35 There can be no better way of concluding this article than by quoting Nemeyer's opinion to- day: I believe the well never runs dry when it comes to scholarly materials. What is current today be- comes immediately retrospective. Disciplines change but scholars' needs remain various and intriguing. 36 REFERENCES 1. Carol A . Nemeyer, Scholarly Reprint Publishing in the United States (New York: Bowker, 1972). 2. , "Scholarly Reprint Publishing in the United States" (Ph.D. diss., Columbia Univ., 1971). 3. Nemeyer, Scholarly Reprint Publishing, p.1. 4_. Ibid., appendix E, p.174-213. 5. Ibid., p.17. 6. Ibid., p.14-15. 7. CHOICE, review, 10:72 (Mar. 1973). 8. Gunther J. Herman, review, Library Quarterly 43:179 (Apr. 1973). 9. Robert E. Cazden, review, Library Resources & Technical Services 18:301-2 (Summer 1974). ·10. Charles Aston, Jr., review, Library Journal98:141 Oan. 15, 1973). 11. Carol A. Nemeyer, letter to the author, March 3, 1983. 12. "Rare Book Reprint Standards Are Made Available," Library Journal97:2682 (Sept. 1, 1972). 13. Nemeyer now concurs in this; see reference 11. 14. Nemeyer, Scholarly Reprint Publishing, p.159-61. 15._ Daniel A. Yanchisen, "Old Books, New Faces," North Carolina Libraries 34:11-13 (Spring 1976). 16. J. A. Wiseman, "The Reprint Bulletin-Book Reviews: Another Librarian's View," Reprint Bulletin- Book Reviews 18:2-3 (Fall1973). 17. Joseph J. Nerbonne, "Book Pirating Is Lively on Formosa but Authorized Reprints Are Making Gains," Publishers Weekly 214:28-30 (Aug. 7, 1978). 18. Hendrik Edelman, review, College & Research Libraries 34:163 (Mar. 1973). 19. Nemeyer, Scholarly Reprint Publishing, p.172 . 20. Ibid., p.73-75. 21. Melvin Voigt and Joseph H . Treyz, eds., Books for College Libraries, a Selected List of Approximately 53,400 Titles Based on the Original Selection Made for the University of California's New Campus Program Scholarly Reprint Publishing 139 and Selected with the Assistance of College Teachers, Librarians, and Other Advisers (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1967). 22. Charles B. Shaw, A List of Books for College Libraries: Approximately 14,000 Titles Selected on the Recom- mendation of200 College Teachers, Librarians, and Other Advisors, Prepared by Charles B. Shaw for the Carnegie Corporation of New York Advisory Group on College Libraries, William Warner Bishop, Chairman, 2d preliminary ed .. (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1931). 23. Charles B. Shaw, A List of Books for College Libraries, 1931-38 (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1940). 24. William Warner Bishop, preface, inA List of Books for College Libraries, by Charles B. Shaw (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1931), p.v. 25. Leon Carnovsky, review, Library Quarterly 2:161 (Apr. 1932). · 26. Voigt and Treyz, Books for College Libraries, p.v. 27. Lee Ash, review, Library Journal, 92:3390,3392 (Oct. 1967). 28. "Seminal Start," CHOICE 4:797-98 (Oct. 1967). 29. Nemeyer, letter to the author. 30. Charles F. Gosnell, review, Library ]ournal65:531-32 Oune 15, 1940). 31. Leonard Jolley, "Some Reflections on Reprints," Australian Academic and Research Libraries 4:80-84 Oune 1973). 32. Ann S. Davis, ed., Guide to Reprints, (Kent, Conn.: Guide to Reprints, Inc., 1967- ). Originally edited by A. J. Diaz and published by Microcard Editions. 33. Christa Gnirss, ed., International Bibliography of Reprints (Munich: Verlag Dokumentation, 1976- t. 34. J. A. Casada, "Reflections in a Burst Bubble: Africana Reprints," Reprint Bulletin-Book Reviews 21:1-3 .(Spring 1976). 35. Nemeyer, Scholarly Reprint Publishing, p.79-81. 36. Nemeyer, letter to the author.