368 Do Open Access Electronic Theses and Dissertations Diminish Publishing Opportunities in the Social Sciences and Humanities? Findings from a 2011 Survey of Academic Publishers Marisa L. Ramirez, Joan T. Dalton, Gail McMillan, Max Read, and Nancy H. Seamans Marisa L. Ramirez is Digital Repository Librarian at California Polytechnic State University; e-mail: mramir14@calpoly.edu. Joan T. Dalton is Associate Dean of the Leddy Library at the University of Windsor; e-mail: jdalton@uwindsor.ca. Gail McMillan is Director, Digital Library and Archives, in the Newman Library at Virginia Tech; e-mail: gailmac@vt.edu. Max Read is Associate Director of Student Academic Services, Faculty of Graduate Studies, at the University of British Columbia; e-mail: max.read@ubc.ca. Nancy H. Seamans is Dean of University Libraries at Georgia State University; e-mail: nseamans@gsu. edu. The authors would like to thank Dr. Edward A. Fox and the Board of Directors of the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations for their invaluable support of this research. © 2013 Marisa L. Ramirez, Joan T. Dalton, Gail McMillan, Max Read, and Nancy H. Seamans, Attribution-NonCommercial (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) CC BY-NC. An increasing number of higher education institutions worldwide are requiring submission of electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs) by graduate students and are subsequently providing open access to these works in online repositories. Faculty advisors and graduate students are concerned that such unfettered access to their work could diminish future publishing opportunities. This study investigated social sciences, arts, and humanities journal editors’ and university press directors’ attitudes toward ETDs. The findings indicate that manuscripts that are revisions of openly accessible ETDs are always welcome for submission or considered on a case-by-case basis by 82.8 percent of journal editors and 53.7 percent of university press directors polled. Introduction and Background An increasing number of higher educa- tion institutions worldwide are requiring electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs) and are making them publicly available in open access repositories. However, social sciences, arts, and humanities fac- ulty advisors and students are concerned that open access to their electronic theses or dissertations could diminish future publishing opportunities. This study investigated social sciences, arts, and humanities journal editors’ and university press directors’ attitudes toward online theses and dissertations. The implementation of ETDs was initi- ated in the early 1990s by Virginia Tech. Since then, ETD workflows have been implemented by over 1,100 institutions worldwide.1 Early studies demonstrated crl-356 Findings from a 2011 Survey of Academic Publishers 369 that graduate advisors supported the implementation of ETDs and believed that the advantages of open access ETDs outweighed the disadvantages.2 None- theless, a study conducted in 2008 by the Coalition for Networked Information (CNI) indicated that, while the majority of U.S. universities and colleges have an ETD program in place, “some gradu- ate students have been warned by their advisors or threatened by publishers that if they allow open access to their work, it will preclude future publication of the content in certain journals or as a monograph.”3 In fact, institutions with ETD programs indicated that the most common concern expressed by students and faculty was that openly accessible ETDs may result in future limitations to publication opportunities. Student and faculty concerns result from a kernel of truth. For example, Texas A&M University Press Director, Charles Backus, described his enterprise as “much more reluctant to consider works based on dissertations than in the past…because most libraries and library vendors will not buy or recommend purchase of ensuing books that are based substantially on them [ETDs].”4 But do other publishers believe that open access to electronic work constitutes publication, even works that are student-generated theses or disserta- tions? Past studies exploring this ques- tion provide some insight. A 2001 study of 46 science and social science journal editors indicated that only a minority (25%) considered ETDs to be prior pub- lications.5 The qualitative data collected in that study indicated that a thesis or dissertation must undergo revision to be in accordance with journal guidelines. A follow-up study used a similar survey instrument but broadened the scope to include academic and commercial presses in addition to academic journal editors. Less than 15 percent (14.13%) of respon- dents of that study considered ETDs prior publications.6 A 2002 study of 36 humanities journal editors and university presses found that 23 percent of respon- dents considered ETDs as prior publica- tions. However, in accordance with their editorial policy, 67 percent of humanities journal editors and university presses welcome dissertations for submission or consider these works for publication on an individual basis.7 University students and personnel have also been studied to determine if they have received reports from publish- ers rejecting student work that is available in ETD format. A 2000 study of Virginia Tech graduates indicated that, of the 166 alumni respondents, 29 percent went on to publish derivatives of their ETD, and none encountered resistance from pub- lishers to accepting their ETD-derived manuscript for publication.8 Based on a 2010 study of ETDs on university campus- es, only 1.8% of graduate alumni reported publisher rejections of their ETD-derived manuscripts.9 ProQuest, an electronic and microfilm publisher of theses and dissertations seldom receives requests by students or university personnel to remove access to their ETDs because publishers considered these works “prior publication.” This constitutes a fraction (0.002) of the 70,000 theses and disserta- tions made electronically accessible via ProQuest in 2011.10 Despite past studies that indicate that ETDs are generally accepted by publish- ers, doubts still linger in the minds of students and faculty in the arts, humani- ties, and social sciences. For example, creative writing students voiced their concern about open access to their work, pointing to anecdotes that illustrate the threat to the potential publishing and commercial value of their novel and other creative works. Several institutions such as University of Iowa, Louisiana State University, Bowling Green State Univer- sity, and West Virginia University now exempt creative writing students from the ETD requirements.11 Approach and Motivation What are the policies of social sciences, arts, and humanities journals and uni- 370 College & Research Libraries July 2013 versity presses on this issue of ETDs constituting “prior publication”? The current study is of particular interest for several reasons. Much of the survey data in this area of concern are over a decade old. Additionally, past studies had a small response and sample size or the studies were focused in scope and thus not as relevant to scholars in the social sciences, arts, and humanities. These scholars con- tinue to doubt the viability of publishing opportunities after a dissertation or thesis becomes available electronically in an open access repository. Perceptions and fear, not data, inform many graduate ad- visors’ and graduate students’ decisions to restrict access to their ETDs. Methods To identify the top journals in the social sciences and humanities, data were ex- tracted from the Thomson Reuter’s Jour- nal Performance Indicators (JPI) for the most recent five-year period (2005–2009). JPI data are typically used in academe to gain an understanding of journal impact and performance within a discipline over a period of time. Drawing specifically on the data from the social sciences and arts and humanities indices, 55 disciplinary categories were present in the social sciences index and 27 in the arts and humanities index. A category that was duplicated in both indices (history) was counted only once, resulting in 81 distinct JPI disciplinary categories (a total of 7,123 journal titles) that were identified for the study. The top ten journals were identified in each of the 81 “in scope” disciplinary categories by using the relative impact factor (RIF), which is a measure assigned to individual journals to indicate the importance of a journal within its field. Journals assigned a higher impact fac- tor are considered more important to a specific field than similar journals with a lower RIF. Some journals are associated with, and are highly influential in, more than one discipline, thus appearing in more than one disciplinary “top ten” list. A total of 810 peer-reviewed journals were identified and 162 duplicate journal entries were removed, resulting in a final list of 648 top journals in the social sci- ences, arts, and humanities. Contact information for the Editor-in- Chief was manually collected for each journal. If an Editor-in-Chief was not identified by the journal, the Managing Editor information was used instead. Ten individuals edited multiple journals, so the duplicated names were removed. Twenty-three additional editors “opted out” of any survey via the SurveyMonkey polling tool. Therefore, a total of 615 jour- nal editors were identified for the survey. Scholarly monograph publishers were identified using the Association of Ameri- can University Presses (AAUP) member- ship list (www.aaupnet.org). The AAUP is a cooperative organization consisting of over 100 university presses in the humani- ties, the arts, and sciences. Because much of the research conducted in the arts and humanities is reported in monographs published by university presses, the study was extended to survey this group. After receiving approval from the Institutional Review Board and Human Subjects Committee, the survey was pretested on a representative group of 19 journal editors and university press directors. Changes were made to the survey format and wording was edited to address concerns and eliminate points of confusion as indicated in the pretest. The study was conducted between May 17 and June 16, 2011, and was distributed to 615 social sciences and arts and humani- ties journal editors and 131 university press directors via Survey Monkey, an online web-based survey tool. The e-mail invitation included a brief description of the goals of the survey and a link to the on- line survey. A reminder message was sent two weeks after the survey was launched. The survey was composed of 11 questions designed to elicit information on the edito- rial policies and practices governing the journal or press. The survey format, ques- tion wording, length of the survey, and Findings from a 2011 Survey of Academic Publishers 371 the use of an online survey tool were all considerations in the construction of the survey. The researchers aimed to reduce the burden on respondents in an effort to increase the response rate and eliminate bias. The survey had built-in skip logic that made sure that respondents saw only relevant questions. Results The resulting sample included 75 social sciences and arts and humanities journal respondents out of 615 eligible journal respondents, for a 12 percent response rate for social sciences and arts and hu- manities journals. The survey received 53 responses out of 131 AAUP members, for a 40 percent response rate from university presses. Overall, the survey received 128 responses out of 746 total eligible journals and university press respondents, for a 17 percent response rate. While appropriate measures were taken to reduce any potential sources of bias, sources of bias may have been in- troduced by allowing individuals to skip questions, scroll backward and forward, change their answers, and exit at any time. With an overall response rate of 17 per- cent, there is the possibility of bias due to nonresponse: that is, the individuals who did not respond to the survey may have answered differently from those who did respond to the survey. Several variables were analyzed using a two-proportion z- test with data from the respondents and nonrespondents to determine if there was statistical evidence of bias. All p-values generated by these tests were greater than 0.05, with the exception of number of titles generated by university presses. Possible bias may have been introduced because university press respondents with a larger number of title offerings may have answered differently from those who did not respond to the survey. With the exception of the aforementioned, no other statistically significant differences between the two groups were identified. All of our respondents reported holding leadership positions in their publishing enterprises. Twenty-seven percent of all respondents reported holding the title of Director or Associate Director, 61.3 percent held the title of Editor, Co-Editor or Editor- In-Chief, and 11.7 percent were Managing or Acquisition Editors. The majority (65%) of our university press respondents indi- cated that they held the position of Direc- tor. Eighty percent of our academic journal respondents indicated that they held the position of Editor (45.7%) or Editor-in- Chief (34.4%). Because all respondents reported holding leadership positions, throughout this paper academic journal respondents will be referred to collectively as “journal editors” and university press respondents will be referred to collectively as “university press directors.” When asked to select one or more dis- ciplines representative of their publishing enterprise, respondents indicated that they were affiliated with a vast array of so- cial sciences, arts, and humanities fields. Academic journals and university presses each indicated affiliations with over 73 so- cial sciences, arts, and humanities fields. The top three disciplines represented by journal editors were interdisciplinary so- cial sciences (20.0%), urban studies (8%), and history (8%). The top three disciplines represented by university press direc- tors were history (80.5%), environmental studies (48.8%), and literary theory and criticism (48.8%). The size of the enterprise was another area of investigation. Journal editors were asked to provide the most recent annual circulation figures, including total paid and free subscriptions. The mean annual circulation was 7,779; the median was 3,100; the mode was 3,000; and the circu- lation figures ranged from 250 to 62,000 (range: 61,750). Few journal editors were able to indicate the size of their enter- prise based on most recent annual sales figures, because the journal was but one publishing vehicle sold as a “suite” with other journals, or because the publishing entity like Elsevier or the overall scholarly society would have sales numbers, but not the individual journal editors. 372 College & Research Libraries July 2013 University press directors were largely unable to furnish annual circulation fig- ures, but instead the recent annual sales figures provided more insight into the size of the enterprise. Based on the most recent annual sales figures of university presses, the mean was $5,751,500; the median and mode were both $3 million; and responses ranged from $150,000 to $35 million. Based on responses, the ma- jority of the university press directors fell into Group 3 ($3 to $6 million in annual sales) as defined by The Association of American University Presses. When university press directors were asked to indicate the distribution of published materials by format based on the most recent annual sales, 65 percent of the respondents indicated publishing journals in addition to publishing books. Of the university press directors who indicated that they publish journals in addition to publishing books, journals composed an average of 20.8 percent of university press annual sales, and monographs composed an average of 79.2 percent of annual sales. Prior Publication: Combined Responses Respondents were asked to indicate their editorial policy or practice governing the evaluation of manuscripts derived from openly accessible ETDs. The majority of responses (72%) from university press di- rectors and journal editors indicated that manuscripts that are revisions of openly accessible ETDs are always welcome for submission (45%) or considered on a case- by-case basis (27%). Only 4.5 percent of all respondents indicated that they would never consider an ETD for publication. Journal Responses The majority of journal editors (82.8%) indicated that their enterprise will con- sider a manuscript derived from an openly accessible ETD for submission to their journal, with 65.7 percent indicating that manuscripts of this type are always welcome for submission and 17.1 per- cent of the respondents confirming they Table 1 University Press Size* Group 1: Up to $1.5 million 31% (10) Group 2: $1.5 to <$3 million 16% (5) Group 3: $3 to $6 million 34% (11) Group 4: $6 million + 19% (6) *Press Size based on AAUP Sales Group Classification figUre 1 Journal and University Press respondents “Manuscripts which are revisions derived from openly accessible eTDs are…” Always welcome, 45.0% Case-by-case basis, 27.0% Substan�ally different,13.5% Limited to campus, 2.7% Not considered, 4.5% Other, 7.2% Always welcome Considered on a case-by-case basis Only if the contents and conclusions in the manuscript are substan�ally different from the ETD Only if ETD has access limited to the campus where completed Not considered Other Findings from a 2011 Survey of Academic Publishers 373 would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Only 2.9 percent of journal editors indicated that manuscripts derived from open access ETDs would not be consid- ered under any circumstances. None of the journal editors (0.0%) indicated that an ETD would be considered because ac- cess to the item was limited to the campus where it was completed. When looking at disciplinary differ- ences, one journal editor in the subject area of “literature” indicated that ETDs would not be considered under any circumstances. This was the only jour- nal editor respondent to indicate that ETDs would not be accepted under any circumstances, stating that “we publish original work. If it is a disserta- tion chapter, published electronically or otherwise, it needs to be revised for publication in our journal.” The majority of journal editor respondents in the fol- lowing subject areas indicated that their publication would tend to consider ETDs on a case-by-case basis: classics (100% of journal respondents in the subject area), history of social sciences (66.6%), philosophy (100%), biomedical social sci- ences (66.6%), mathematical methods in social sciences (60%), and theater (100%). All other subject area journal editors indicated that ETDs would always be welcome for submission. Journal editors who always welcome ETDs for submission reported their recent annual circulation figures, including total paid and free subscriptions. The mean annual circulation was 11,429; the me- dian circulation was 5,000; the mode was 5,000; and circulation figures ranged from 62,000 to 250 (range: 61,750). Journal edi- tors who indicated that ETDs would never consider an ETD for publication reported a mean and median annual circulation of 3,550, and annual circulation figures ranged from 6,500 to 600 (range: 5,900). The findings indicate that the journals with higher annual circulation figures are more tolerant of ETDs, and journals with more limited annual circulation figures are less likely to consider an ETD for publication. University Press Responses Close to 10 percent (9.8%) of univer- sity press directors indicated that their enterprise will always welcome ETDs for submission, with the majority of respondents (43.9%) indicating that a manuscript derived from an open access ETD would be considered on a case-by- case basis. Only 7.3 percent of university press directors indicated that manuscripts derived from an open access ETD would not be considered for publication under any circumstances. figUre 2 Journal respondents “Manuscripts which are revisions derived from openly accessible eTDs are…” Always welcome, 65.7% Case-by-case basis, 17.1% Substan�ally different, 5.7% Limited to campus, 0.0% Not considered, 2.9% Other, 8.6% Always welcome Considered on a case-by-case basis Considered ONLY IF the contents and conclusions in the manuscript are substan�ally different from the ETD Considered only if ETD has access limited to the campus where completed Not considered Other 374 College & Research Libraries July 2013 When viewed by subject areas, univer- sity press directors in most arts, humani- ties, and social science disciplines favored considering ETDs on a case-by-case basis. The majority of university presses in the following subject areas indicated that their enterprise would not consider an ETD un- der any circumstances: romance literature (100% of university press respondents in the subject area), applied and social psychology (each 100%), mathematical methods in social sciences (100%). University press directors who indi- cated that ETDs are always welcome for submission reported mean annual sales of $5 million, with a median of $3.5 mil- lion, with a range from $150,000 to $13 million in annual sales (range: $12.85 million). University press directors who would consider ETDs on a case-by-case basis reported $6.7 million in annual sales, with a median of $2.9 million, a mode of $3 million, and a range of $499,000 to $25 million. A sole university press director, reporting annual sales figures of $1 mil- lion, indicated that their enterprise would not accept ETDs under any circumstances. Discussion The survey elicited responses from a broad audience representing a vast array of social sciences, arts, and humanities disciplines. Respondents were primar- ily the top leadership from journals and university presses. These are individuals who have the power and the influence to shape the policy and direction of the publication or enterprise they lead. While journal editors reported annual circulation numbers ranging from 250 to 62,000, the average circulation size of the respondents was around 3,200. While university press directors reported annual sales figures ranging from $150,000 to $35 million, the average university press respondent reported that their enterprise earned a median of $3 million annually. It is noteworthy that editors associated with a journal with a respectively smaller mean annual circulation size (3,550) and university press directors associated with a press classified in the smallest AAUP range, Group 1, based on annual sales (≤$1.5 million) were more likely to indicate that their enterprise would never consider an ETD for publication. From the qualitative data we collected, it appeared to be a commonly held expecta- tion that the dissertation or thesis would need to be revised prior to submission to the university press or journal to fit their publishing guidelines (such as length, audience, voice). One journal editor com- mented, “We have no objection to prior figUre 3 University Press respondents “Manuscripts which are revisions derived from openly accessible eTDs are…” Always welcome, 9.8% Case-by-case basis, 43.9% Substan�ally different, 26.8% Limited to campus, 7.3% Not considered, 7.3% Other, 4.9% Always welcome Considered on a case-by-case basis Only if the contents and conclusions are substan�ally different from ETD Only if ETD access is limited to the campus where completed Not considered Other Findings from a 2011 Survey of Academic Publishers 375 electronic publication of dissertations or theses. In most situations, the academic document would have to be significantly revised in order to meet our author guide- lines for publication.” Following the publishing guidelines is very important because “a journal article is not going to take the same form as a thesis or disserta- tion; if it tries, it won’t pass peer review.” In terms of length, “A thesis would be too long for our journal, so I take them on a case-by- case basis” and “A thesis in our field would likely offer up a chapter only. Even that would likely need significant revision to be converted to a publishable paper. This is not a comment about ETDs [but instead it] is a comment about thesis chapters.” Journal editors point out the added value provided by journal peer review and refor- matting. They also differentiate between the rhetoric used by an author for a thesis or dissertation committee versus the writing style used for a broader journal reader- ship. As one journal editor points out, “A journal article is qualitatively different from a thesis, and must be structured with the needs of quite different readers in mind. All our submissions are subject to peer review, and frequently papers change in response to reviewer feedback. The fact that a paper grows out from an academic thesis is not a concern for this journal.” University press directors offered similar observations about the differences between ETDs and monographs. Audi- ence is a key consideration for university presses: “We normally consider theses or dissertations for publication only if the author is willing to revise them for a broader audience; this is our practice regardless of the availability of an ETD.” Many of the comments received from respondents elaborated on their thoughts about whether an ETD is considered an unpublished work and on the quality of ETDs. The following response was echoed by journal editors and univer- sity press directors alike: “[Theses] and dissertations have *never* counted as publications…a PDF of an unpublished work is still an unpublished work. It sim- ply can’t work to have a scientific model where work-in-progress is disqualified from publication if it’s been posted on a web server.” ETDs, on the whole, are not considered publications by the survey respondents. Quality, it appears, is the publisher ’s main concern about theses and dissertations. Based on respondents’ comments, it is a commonly held opin- ion that publishing a work in a journal or monograph lends more authority to the work and is the preferred version by readers and researchers because of the writing style used to appeal to a broader readership. In contrast, an ETD is written for a different audience and is held to standards that are different from those of journal or book publishing. One jour- nal editor states that “ETDs are not and should not be considered publications. The fact that they are circulated online does not mean they are peer-reviewed independently. Often theses are instead reviewed by internal committees in the institutions.” A university press director responded “prior availability through an IR is not usually the deciding factor. We are more interested in the quality of the work, how well it fits with our list, and whether it deserves wider dissemination and promotion.” Another university press director elaborated on the importance of quality, saying “whether in hard or electronic copy, we expect that the dis- sertation be completely revised before we will consider a manuscript. We do not consider the dissertation to be the equivalent of a book. It is student work; a book is professional work.” While a journal editor comments that “we treat theses and dissertations as unpublished material,” this same respon- dent believes that “readers will consider our article to be the version of record, the version they should read and cite, because (a) it will have been vetted by our double-blind peer review process, (b) it will have been professionally edited, and (c) it will be the most up-to-date version of the material.” As further described by another journal editor, “people rarely cite 376 College & Research Libraries July 2013 theses, but instead, cite the journal articles in which the thesis research is reported. This occurred before theses were available electronically and will continue in the future. Journal articles are peer reviewed and theses are not, so people trust the version in the journal article more.” As a university press director shared, “the edi- torial review and publication process en- tails substantial refinement and revision of works that originate as part of doctoral work and thus we do not consider raw dissertations as competing with the works eventually published under our imprint.” The originality and substantially of the work is of more interest to university press directors and journal editors. One university press director commented, “Some manuscripts, even if published electronically as dissertations, are ap- pealing regardless of their electronic availability because the audience for them in print form is substantial enough that it does not matter. There is a substantial market for certain works of Civil War history, for instance, that is quite broad. The lay readership for Civil War history, for instance, wants to have the book and would not likely know or have access to the text in dissertation (electronic) form. Even if they knew, they would likely still want the book.” A journal editor echoes previous sentiments, saying that “I base my judgments on value added, as it were; i.e. whether there is sufficient original ma- terial to warrant space in the space limited environment of my journal.” Some unforeseen, but nonetheless interesting, patterns in the qualitative data emerged. Ethical concerns, such as self-plagiarism, were expressed by respondents. As one journal editor put it, “Duplication of the ideas behind the thesis or dissertation is a moderate con- cern.” Another of the concerns involved compromising the integrity of the peer- review process. As one journal editor puts it, “An ETD makes anonymity in review easy to determine who the author is and thus undermines the strength and reliability of peer review. This could, ul- timately, disadvantage young scholars.” Because electronic documents can be indexed by powerful search engines, the concern is that reviewers will unwittingly locate an open access ETD by searching on phraseology used within the manu- script, thus revealing author information that is typically suppressed in the blind or double-blind peer-review processes. Based on several comments by university press directors, there is concern about library collecting policies as inadvertently influencing university presses’ policies on ETDs. As one university press director describes it, the “bigger issue is that we’re being told by library wholesalers that more and more university libraries are using a blanket removal of books based on dissertations from their university press approval plans. While there contin- ues to be a wide range of opinion about whether ETDs count as prior publication among publishers, librarians seem to be more and more inclined to treat them as such—which will become a bigger and bigger problem for us, of course.” Another university press director adds, “The ‘profiles’ set by vendors such as Yankee Book Peddler (YBP) on books and the selection criteria established by the majority of academic libraries include a ‘dissertation factor’ which will eliminate these books from their purchase list. If no one is going to buy the book, no one will publish it.” A third university press director issues a warning to academia, saying “We understand some book distributors like Yankee Book Peddler specifically search publications to see if they are connected to dissertations, and if they are, then many libraries refuse to buy them on grounds they can already get the material through dissertation databases. As long as that practice continues, we will have no choice but to take a hostile view to pre-publication of dissertations. University administrators can’t have it both ways: they can’t both expect presses to be solvent, and require us to publish dissertations (in whatever form) so that their PhDs can get tenure.” Findings from a 2011 Survey of Academic Publishers 377 Conclusion and Recommendations This study was conducted a decade after the first study on the perception of manu- scripts derived from ETDs.12 In that study, 75 percent of the respondents represent- ing the social sciences indicated they would either accept or consider, without prejudice, submissions derived from openly available ETDs. The responses to this survey indicate that ETDs are not considered prior publications by journal editors or university press directors in the social sciences, arts, or humanities. Both graduate students and advisors in the social sciences, arts, or humanities should be advised of these findings, par- ticularly given that prior publication has been one area of fear and misperceptions. The majority of all responses (72%) from university press directors and journal editors indicated that manuscripts that are revisions of openly accessible ETDs are always welcome for submission (45%) or considered on a case-by-case basis (27%). Only 4.5 percent of all respondents indicated that they would never consider an ETD for publication. The majority of journal editors (82.8%) indicated that their enterprise will consider an openly acces- sible ETD for submission to their journal. Over half of university press directors (53.7%) indicated that their enterprise will consider an openly accessible ETD for later publishing. Nonetheless, our study does seem to in- dicate that the “smaller” university presses and journals may view ETDs as a threat to their bottom line, and thus may not publish works derived from ETDs. Additionally, university presses and journals in the lit- erature field may be less inclined to con- sider a work derived from an ETD. It was unexpected to receive several comments by university press directors that imply causation between library collecting poli- cies and university presses’ ETD policies. It is unclear if these comments represent a minority view or are shared by a larger group. This is an area for future study. Quality is the main concern about ETDs. Publishers recognize that a book or journal article must be adapted to a new audience and conform to peer review, so the final work will be different in many ways from the original ETD. Because the majority of journals and university presses will consider a social science, arts, or humanities manuscript that has been derived from an open access ETD, scholars in these disciplines are urged to make ETDs openly accessible. With encouragement from the Board of Directors of the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations, the authors are pursuing a survey of science journal editors in spring 2012 to expand the data available on publishers’ attitudes about ETDs. 378 College & Research Libraries July 2013 Appendix Survey Questions You have been invited to complete the survey based on your role in academic publish- ing, either as an editor or publisher. The term “enterprise” is used in this survey to refer to a journal, a university press, or a commercial publishing company. 1. I am voluntarily participating in this survey. (required question) • Yes 2. What is the nature of your enterprise? • University Press • Commercial Publishing Company • Journal • Other (please specify): 3. My affiliation with the enterprise is: • Acquisitions Editor • Assistant Editor • Director • Editor • Co-Editor • Editor-in-Chief • Editorial Assistant • Managing Editor • Other (please specify): 4. Please select one or more of the broad subject areas below that are most representative of your enterprise: Anthropology Archaeology Architecture Area Studies Art Asian Studies Business Business, Finance Classics Communication Criminology & Penology Dance Demography Economics Education & Educational Research Education, Special Environmental Studies Ergonomics Ethics Ethnic Studies Family Studies Film, Radio, Television Folklore Geography Gerontology Health Policy & Services History History & Philosophy of Science History of Social Sciences Hospitality, Leisure, Sport, & Tourism Humanities, Multidisciplinary Industrial Relations & Labor Information Science & Library Science International Relations Language & Linguistics Law Linguistics Literary Reviews Literary Theory & Criticism Literature Literature, African, Australian, Canadian Literature, American Findings from a 2011 Survey of Academic Publishers 379 Literature, British Isles Literature, German, Dutch, Scandinavian Literature, Romance Literature, Slavic Management Medieval & Renaissance Studies Music Nursing Philosophy Planning & Development Poetry Political Science Psychiatry Psychology Psychology, Applied Psychology, Biological Psychology, Clinical Psychology, Developmental Psychology, Educational Psychology, Experimental Psychology, Mathematical Psychology, Multidisciplinary Psychology, Psychoanalysis Psychology, Social Public Administration Public, Environmental, & Occupational Health Rehabilitation Religion Social Issues Social Sciences, Biomedical Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, Mathematical Methods Social Work Sociology Substance Abuse Theater Transportation Urban Studies Women’s Studies Other (please specify): 5. Which of the following statements best reflects the editorial policy or practice governing your enterprise? “Manuscripts which are revisions derived from openly accessible electronic theses or dissertations (ETDs) are…” • Always welcome for submission • Considered on a case-by-case basis • Considered ONLY IF the contents and conclusions in the manuscript are sub- stantially different from the ETD • Considered ONLY IF the ETD has access limited to the campus or institution where it was completed • Not considered under any circumstances • Other (please elaborate): 6. Please share additional comments or observations on the previous question. The following questions gather information about the size of your enterprise. 7. Please provide your most recent annual circulation figures (e.g. total paid and/ or free subscriptions). 8. Please indicate the size of your enterprise based on your most recent annual sales figures. 9. If questions 7 and 8 are not applicable, how would you describe the size of your enterprise? 380 College & Research Libraries July 2013 10. If your enterprise is a University Press, please indicate the distribution of published materials for your enterprise based on format using a percentage of your most recent annual sales (e.g. Books 80%, Journals 20%). • Books: • Journals: 11. Optional: Please enter your name and e-mail Your personal identification will not be shared in any way, and would only be used by members of this research committee in the event clarification is needed or additional questions arise with respect to your survey responses. Notes 1. University of Nottingham, U.K., OpenDOAR, available online at www.opendoar.org/ [accessed 18 November 2011]. 2. Ursula I.A. Goldsmith, “Perceptions of Active Graduate Faculty at a Research Intensive University Regarding Electronic Submission of Theses and Dissertations (ETDs)” (PhD diss., Louisiana State University, 2002), 121, available online at http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd- 0709102-111850/ [accessed 15 May 2013]. 3. Joan K. Lippincott and Clifford A. Lynch, “ETDs and Graduate Education: Programs and Prospects,” Research Library Issues: A Biomonthly Report from ARL, CNI, and SPARC (June 2010): 10, available online at http://publications.arl.org/rli270/7 [accessed 15 May 2013]. 4 Jennifer Howard, “The Road From Dissertation to Book Has a New Pothole: the Internet,” Chronicle of Higher Education (Apr. 3, 2011), available online at http://chronicle.com/article/The- Road-From-Dissertation-to/126977 [accessed 15 May 2013]. 5. Joan T. Dalton, “Electronic Theses & Dissertations: A Survey of Editors & Publishers” (unpublished paper, http://docs.ndltd.org:8081/dspace/handle/2340/169, 2001), 12. 6. Nancy H. Seamans, “Electronic Theses and Dissertations as Prior Publications: What the Editors Say,” Library Hi Tech 21, no. 1 (2003): 58, doi: 10.1108/07378830310467409. 7. Bobby Holt, “Facilitator or Deterrent? Electronic Theses & Dissertations and Publishing: A Survey of Humanities Editors and Publishers” (unpublished report, Virginia Tech Digital Library and Archives, 2002). 8. John Eaton, Ed Fox, and Gail McMillan, “Results of a Survey of Virginia Tech Graduates Whose Digital Theses and Dissertations are Accessible Worldwide,” Council of Graduate Schools Communicator (Nov. 2000): 6, available online at http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/EatonCGS2000ET- Dauthors.pdf [accessed 21 November 2011]. 9. Angela M. McCutcheon, “Impact of Publishers’ Policy on Electronic Thesis and Disserta- tion (ETD) Distribution Options within the United States” (PhD diss., Ohio University, 2010), 139, available online at http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi?acc_num=ohiou1273584209 [accessed 15 May 2013]. 10. Austin McLean, ProQuest representative (e-mail message to authors, Oct. 13, 2011). 11. McCutcheon, “Impact of Publishers’ Policy on Electronic Thesis and Dissertation (ETD) Distribution Options within the United States,” 65–68. 12. Dalton, “Electronic Theses & Dissertations: A Survey of Editors & Publishers,” 16.