1. AN INVESTIGATION OF ETDS AS PRIOR PUBLICATIONS Findings from the 2011 Publishers’ Survey
[At the May 2009 Canadian ETD conference Joan Dalton approached GMc about redoing her 1999 survey.]
NDLTD PriorPubWG, Nan chair
12/13/10 PriorPubWG to NDLTD BoD
Charge
To investigate the expansion and update of the previous publisher surveys that were first conducted to determine publishers’ attitudes towards ETDs and their perception of ETDs as prior publications. Of particular interest is the ability to understand discipline-specific concerns.
Activities
Preliminary discussions took place at NDLTD 2010 conference in Austin, TX, in June among Seamans, Read, Ramirez, McMillan and with Dalton agreeing to form a working group.
Conference calls frequently since August 2010.
Marisa, Nan, and Gail met at the Association of College and Research Libraries conference in Philadelphia in April 2011.Discussions with Thompson Reuters rep and follow-up conference call. Joan's research financing enabled us to purchase from Thomson Reuters Journal Performance Indicators for over 7,000 titles.
NDLTD Prior Publications Working Group
Gail McMillan, Marisa Ramirez, Joan Dalton, Max Read, Nan Seamans
14th International Symposium on ETDs
Cape Town, South Africa
Sept. 14, 2011

2. Why do another survey? Publishers previously surveyed a decade ago.
Questions continue to arise.
ETD-L
Chronicle of Higher Education
Perceptions, not data, is reported.
LSU ETD by Ursula Goldsmith
VT ETD author surveys
Authors are restricting access to the ETDs.
Faculty are advising students to restrict access.
Available data is dated. Raw data for 1-5 below is at [
Publishers Attitudes towards ETDs
ETDs: A Survey of Editors and Publishers Joan Dalton, International Symposium on ETDs, 2000
Do ETDs Deter Publishers? College and Research Libraries News, 2001
ETDs as Prior Publication: What the Editors Say Nancy Seamans, Library Hi Tech, 2003
ETDs: Two Surveys of Editors and Publishers Joan Dalton and Nancy Seamans in ETD: A Sourcebook for Educators, Students, and Librarians. NY: Marcel Dekker, 2004
Facilitator or Deterrent? Electronic Theses & Dissertations and Publishing: A Survey of Humanities Editors and Publishers
Bobby Holt, April 12, 2002 [for a class while working on a Master’s degree at Virginia Tech.]
AN INVESTIGATION OF ETDS AS PRIOR PUBLICATIONS: Findings from the 2011 Publishers’ Survey
Gail McMillan, Marisa Ramirez, Joan Dalton, Max Reed, Nan Seamans, 14th International Symposium on ETDs
A few other information resources touch on the topic of publishers’ attitudes towards ETDs. But these all discuss perceptions and are not the result of real data, except for Angie McCutcheon’s 2010 ETD on the Impact of Publishers' Policy on ETD Distribution Options within the United States. She surveyed graduate school personnel to learn if students had actually been rejected by publishers because their TDs were online. She reported at 1.8% rejection rate.

3. Who was surveyed?
Thompson Reuter’s Journal Performance Indicators (JPI),
Relative Impact Factor (RPI)
~600 journal editors
55 Social Science categories
27 Arts & Humanities categories
~130 press directors
American Association of University Presses
Deciding who to survey.
We began by looking at JPI [Thompson/Reuters (ISI previously) database] publication and citation statistics; and then the average number of citations to articles published
We purchased the most current available journal data from Thompson Reuter’s Journal Performance Indicators (JPI), The JPI index had 81subject categories with ~7,000 journal titles in the Social Sciences and Humanities. Specifically, there were 55 categories in the Social Sciences Index and 27 in the Arts and Humanities Index.
We sorted the data sort on Relative Impact Factor (RPI), and selected the top 10 journal titles in each category.
RPI is a measure reflecting the average number of citations to articles in a journal.  It is an indicator for the relative importance of a journal within its field.
Duplicate journal names were removed, leaving 648 journals for which we gathered, where possible, the names of Editor in Chief (or Managing Editor if Editor in Chief not found) and their addresses. We removed duplicates. This brought us down to 638 journal editors. 22 of the editors had previously "opted out" of any survey via the SurveyMonkey website.
By the time we removed duplicates (journal titles, editors, etc.), we had 616, about two-thirds in the social science journal editors and 1/3 humanities journal editors.
A contact at the American Association of University Presses (AAUP), agreed to circulate our request for survey participants among its 130 members. [all subject areas included]

4. When and how were they surveyed?
May 16, June 16, 2010
746 s with link to survey
SurveyMonkey
Free Web survey tool
ed 616 journal editors (Thanks, Jane Wills.)
AAUP ed 130 university press directors with link to SurveyMonkey (Thanks Brenna McLaughlin.)
Survey Methodology: How and When were They Surveyed?
The total number of journal editors contacted via SurveyMonkey’s feature was 616.
The survey was conducted between May 17th and June 16th,  The invitation included a brief description of the goals of the survey and a link to the online survey. NDLTD executive director, Ed Fox, agreed to let us use his signature on our requests for survey participation.
Brenna McLaughlin [Electronic & Strategic Initiatives Director] at American Association of University Presses (AAUP) sent our to the directors of ~130 member presses on May 19th.
Our s with an embedded link to SurveyMonkey:
Subject: Are Electronic Theses prior publications?
In the U.S. and around the world, Electronic Theses and Dissertations (ETDs) are becoming increasingly available through online digital repositories.
As an academic editor or publisher, would you consider an ETD to have been previously published? Would your journal or publishing enterprise consider accepting a manuscript submission derived from an electronic dissertation?
You are invited to complete a brief (11 question) on how the academic publishing community views ETDs. Your participation will comprise a valued contribution to the growing conversation about academic publishing in the digital environment.

5. Survey Questions 9 demographic questions.
Which of the following best reflects the editorial policy or practice governing your enterprise?
Manuscripts which are revisions of openly accessible ETDs are…
Always welcome for submission.
Considered on a case-by-case basis.
Considered ONLY IF the contents and conclusions in the manuscript are substantially 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
Comments
Survey Methodology: What was the Survey?
The survey was comprised of 11 questions that collected information on prior publication policies among scholarly academic publishers.
9 demographic questions (i.e., statistical characteristics the survey respondents) about:
Nature of the enterprise (e.g., uni press, journal, other)
Broad subject areas most representative of the enterprise
Size of the enterprise
Distribution of published materials (e.g. Books 80%, Journals 20%)
Optional: your name and .
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 substantially 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)
Please share additional comments or observations on the previous question.
[While appropriate measures were taken to reduce any potential sources of bias, with a response rate of ~17% there is the possibility of bias due to non-response.]

6. Who responded to the survey?
17% response rate
75 journal editors
53 university press directors
50% of the responses came from 20 subject disciplines
Most common Univ Press responses included: History (80.5%),   Environmental Studies (48.8), Literary Theory & Criticism (48.8), Religion (46.3), Political Sci (43.9), Humanities, Multidisciplinary (41.5), Anthropology (41.5), Women’s Studies (41.5) Journal Editor responses were more spread out /scattered with the most popular answer being Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary (20.0%) Overall, this shows that we’ve reached a broad audience of Humanities/Social Science editors/publishers
50% of the responses came from these 20 subject disciplines
Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary
History
Urban Studies
Political Science
Anthropology
Environmental Studies
Social Sciences, Mathematical Methods
Sociology
Architecture
Economics
Geography
Literature
Psychology, Applied
Psychology, Mathematical
Archaeology
Demography
International Relations
Literary Theory & Criticism
Nursing
Psychology, Experimental
Women's Studies

7. Manuscripts which are revisions derived from openly accessible ETDs are…
Comments reveal quality is the main concern.
Student vs. professional work
Value added
Deserves wider dissemination and promotion
The following survey findings --data and comments from 128 survey respondents—reveals the policies and practices among 128 journal editors and university press directors, and their attitudes towards online theses and dissertations.
Nearly three/fourths (72%) of the survey respondents said ETDs “are welcome for submission.” 45.0% said “always” and 27% said they were “considered on a case-by-case basis)”. Limiting access to the host university community does not affect a significant number. Less than 3% of the survey respondents consider ETDs for publication based on this criterion. Less that 5%of the survey respondents would not consider publishing ETDs under any circumstances.

8. University Press Policies/Practices: Manuscripts derived from openly accessible ETDs are…
What is the perspective of University Press editors and directors who publish primarily monographs?
54% Welcome for submission
10% Always
44% Considered on a case-by-case basis
27% If contents and conclusions substantially different 7% If access restricted 7% Never
53 AAUP members responded, representing North American academic presses, the majority of which (61%) publish monographs.  34% indicated that a manuscript derived from a publicly accessible ETD could have potentially surmountable barriers to publication.  However, over half of the university presses indicated that manuscripts derived from openly accessible ETDs would either be welcomed for publication or considered on a case-by-case basis.
It was a commonly held expectation that revisions to the original dissertation would have been undertaken prior to submission for consideration. Just over half (52.2%) of the directors of university presses comments had to do with their willingness to consider ETDs that had been revised. For example: “We normally consider  theses or dissertation 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.” (1)
Another university press director commented: “We ask authors to stop distribution of their ETD when we agree to publish their REVISED material.”
“Some manuscripts, even if published electronically as dissertations, are appealing regardless of their electronic availability because the audience for them in print form is substantial enough that it does not matter.” UP comment #2 Q5

9. Journal Policies/Practices: Manuscripts derived from openly accessible ETDs are…
How do the perspectives of journal editors differ from that of largely book publishers?
83% Welcome for submission
66% Always
17% Considered on a case-by-case basis
As expected, journals have migrated to digital delivery at a faster pace than monographs, reflected in the acceptance level of manuscripts derived from ETDs.   Of 128 respondents, 69 indicated “journal” as their enterprise. Of these enterprises, a full 84% indicated a manuscript derived from openly accessible ETDs would either be welcomed for publication or considered on a case-by-case basis.  As with monographs, it was commonly expected the substantial revisions would be undertaken for a journal article submission. “This is not so black and white. These are always welcome for submission but a journal article is not going to take the same form as a thesis or dissertation; if it tries, it won't pass peer review.” Only 3% would not consider such a submission under any circumstances.
While Virginia Tech instituted the university-only restriction largely to appease journal publishers who were opposed to online theses and dissertations, the current survey revealed that restricted access is not necessary. The survey option to “Considered ONLY IF the ETD has access limited to the campus or institution where it was completed” was never selected by journal editors. Less than 3% of the university presses directors are in favor of ETDs with access limited to the home institutions.
The largest group (thirty-four of ninety-one respondents to this question, 37%) identified “protecting the student’s chances for future publication” as their primary reason for approving the embargo. [Owen, T. M., Hackman, T., and Harrod, T. “ETDs in Lock-Down: Trends, Analyses and Faculty Perspectives on ETD Embargoes.” 12th International Symposium on Electronic Theses and Dissertations, University of Pittsburgh, 2009.]

10. Manuscripts which are revisions derived from openly accessible ETDs are…
 2011 Survey
All
Uni. Presses
Journals
Always welcome
45%
10%
66%
Case-by-case
27%
44%
18%
If very different
14% 6%
If access restricted 3% 7%
 0%
Never 4%
Other 5%
The results look quite different when we look at overall survey responses and then separately at university press directors’ and journal editors’ responses. Journal editors are more enthusiastic about receiving submissions based on ETDs than are university presses. Two-thirds of the journals “always welcome” submissions from ETDs, while one-tenth of the university presses do. This is not to say the university presses discourage submissions based on ETDs. Neatly half consider ETD-based submissions on a case-by-case basis. Slightly more than one-quarter (26.8%) will consider submissions “ONLY IF the contents and conclusions in the manuscript are substantially different from the ETD.” There doesn’t appear to be a significant correlation between the size of the enterprise and their policy or perspective on accepting manuscripts derived from ETDs.
However, university presses are about two-and-a-half times as likely to “never” accept ETD-based submissions, than are journal editors. Only university presses find access restrictions necessary.

11. 2011 Comments on the Prior Publication Question
“Dissertations have *never* counted as publications… A pdf of an unpublished work is still an unpublished work.”
“The American Psychological Association, which publishes over 40 journals across psychology, has an official policy that theses/dissertations, even if archived at a university site, are not counted as prior publication.”
In addition to the data, university press directors’ comments are very telling. Nearly half of our survey respondents volunteered additional comments and observations with us, and 42% gave us their names and addresses so that we could follow-up with them.
Comments in favor of ETDs largely represented two categories: (1) judge the quality of the article or book submitted for publication, and (2) ETDs are unpublished works.
“Dissertations have *never* counted as publications… A pdf of an unpublished work is still an unpublished work.” (17)
“The American Psychological Association, which publishes over 40 journals across psychology, has an official policy that theses/dissertations, even if archived at a university site, are not counted as prior publication.” (55)

12. 2011 Publishers’ Comments re Quality
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.
We do not consider the dissertation to be the equivalent of a book. It is student work; a book is professional work.
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.
I base my judgments on value added, as it were; i.e., whether there is sufficient original material to warrant space in the space limited environment of my journal.
Quality is the concern, not that the publication originated with an ETD. (56, 40, 39)
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. (59)
We do not consider the dissertation to be the equivalent of a book. It is student work; a book is professional work. (33)
I base my judgments on value added, as it were; I.e. whether there is sufficient original material to warrant space in the space limited environment of my journal. (25)

13. Summary of 2011 Open-ended Comments
In addition to what the survey data tells us, we have these comments from the publishers.
The major take-aways from the 2011 NDLTD survey of journal editors and university press directors: Quality is more important to them than accessibility of the ETD.
ETDs still aren’t on some publisher’s radar. So graduate students should not hesitate to submit their chapters to journals or their books to academic publishers IF they have been appropriately adapted for a new audience and a very different peer review process. 96% of the publishers will consider them.

14. How do 2011 findings compare to previous surveys?
Not a lot of change overall has taken place in publishers’ attitudes towards ETDs in 10 years. Still a relative few would not consider an ETD-based submission under any circumstances.
Fewer publishers find access restrictions a determining factor when deciding to publish a book or an article from an ETD. More importantly, nearly double the percentage of survey responses require that the ETD be “substantially” different from the original work.

15. ETDs make author anonymity difficult.
New Concerns about ETDs for Journal Editors and Academic Press Directors
ETDs make author anonymity difficult.
“Easy to determine who the author is and thus undermines the strength and reliability of peer review. This could, ultimately, disadvantage young scholars.”
“I never thought about it until just now”…
“We ask authors to stop distribution of their ETD when we agree to publish their REVISED material.”
ETDs include already published articles.
“The one problem this creates, which I and the editorial board have not resolved, is that this makes anonymity in review difficulty easy to determine who the author is) and thus undermines the strength and reliability of peer review. This could, ultimately, disadvantage young scholars. So we may change our policy and not allow submission of manuscripts based on dissertations that are freely accessible.” (18)
We were reminded that not all publishers are familiar with the issues surrounding publications derived from ETDs. One journal editor commented: My first thought on this matter, and I never thought about it until just now, was “why should anything derived from a dissertation be excluded?”—but thinking further—if dissertations can be as readily accessed by computer as is becoming the case with journals—then perhaps I need to consider some form of restriction. The purpose of a journal is to present original information and knowledge—or as near original as possible. If dissertations become as accessible as journal articles, than [sic] perhaps I should adopt a policy that precludes articles drawn from dissertations.” [#4 Q5] This comment may well indicate that either the publishers are out of touch with authors’ concerns, or it hasn’t been brought up as an issue by their authors or editors.
Very few editors or directors seem to be aware that ETDs are also beginning to include published articles. [See comments #22, 44, 51 Q6]
“We would prefer that students work with their major advisors to design thesis [sic] chapters for submission as research articles and review papers as part of the dissertation process to ensure a good fit with the journal. Ideally, the dissertation when completed will contain chapters that have already been published or accepted for publication so that the journal does not have to compete with content that is already freely available.” [comment #51 Q6]

16. Advice to Graduate Students based on the 2011 publishers’ survey
Submit works based on your ETDs.
96% of publishers will consider them.
Quality is the publishers’ main concern.
Adapt them for a new audience.
Peer review is radically different.
Comments in favor of ETDs largely represented two categories: publishers are (1) judging the quality of the article or book submitted for publication, and (2) ETDs are not considered published works.
Other than the surveys reported here and those conducted a decade ago by Dalton, Seamans, and Holt, here is very little data on the topic of publishers’ attitudes about ETDs. Most of the information on this topic relies on perceptions of publishers’ attitudes. The contemporary data as well as that from a decade ago contradict these perceptions.

17. “All essays go through extensive review and revision process, so even if the starting point is out there, the final product is not.” “The editorial review and publication process entails 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.” “A chapter of a thesis or dissertation will virtually never be suitable as an article in my journal. Authors will often have to contextualize their discussion and explain the implications of their conclusions. And authors will often find that, after completing a dissertation, they are able to refine the argumentation a bit as well.”
Comments from Q.6
#49 “All essays go through extensive review and revision process, so even if the starting point is out there, the final product is not.”
#41 “The editorial review and publication process entails 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.”
#53 “A chapter of a thesis or dissertation will virtually never be suitable as an article in my journal. Authors will often have to contextualize their discussion and explain the implications of their conclusions. And authors will often find that, after completing a dissertation, they are able to refine the argumentation a bit as well.”
p. 14
I haven’t finished reviewing Angie’s ETDs. 8/12/11 GMc
A new and very recent source of additional findings on the topic of publishers’ practices is available from Angela McCutcheon’s 2010 ETD entitled “Impact of Publishers' Policy on ETD Distribution Options within the United States.” She surveyed graduate school personnel at hundreds of American universities and found only a very few publishers had out-right rejected manuscripts on the basis of their being derived from ETDs.

18. AN INVESTIGATION OF ETDS AS PRIOR PUBLICATIONS Findings from the 2011 Publishers’ Survey
Contact us with Questions and Comments
Gail McMillan
Joan Dalton
Marisa L. Ramirez
Max Read
Nancy H. Seamans