[Asis-l] New Issue of Journal of Scholarly Publishing

Wed Sep 24 11:20:26 EDT 2014

Journal of Scholarly Publishing
Volume 46, Number 1<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001a-gAe2KKOu_ABDJPEuE3QJMgI_YWCLdd10Ao1OH8MAsVoT6ao5vpMeSEck0jyTCsteAZ1h-iSmyH8tR0ZmScdojzBIoybvFHqo9tMYS8XVT_rlyQ0Frd-5Gu_V59YvFi9VWv2zaZPz6UCanC-izbpIBoLTbzl1Tv90b0hnZlrWQlKVL-mwVKxCnJVAGrAQQSGXGl9GMDJN1zeRb5KUIO1w==>
This Issue Includes:<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001a-gAe2KKOu_ABDJPEuE3QJMgI_YWCLdd10Ao1OH8MAsVoT6ao5vpMeSEck0jyTCsteAZ1h-iSmz0MmtEICldS5H-FhSXobZ5gKXloFv0IhY=>
University Press Forum 2014<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001a-gAe2KKOu_ABDJPEuE3QJMgI_YWCLdd10Ao1OH8MAsVoT6ao5vpMeSEck0jyTCsteAZ1h-iSmyH8tR0ZmScdojzBIoybvFHqo9tMYS8XVT_rlyQ0Frd-5Gu_V59YvFinym5nPK-XblylP5qnDzS9CjENcelPIq0IxVeUXHLoq5O09zbWaPFbeegWdJe5kuyvvvkCA2kIM1OZ6ULfxOKWlk65WUOFR7v>
Tom Radko
DOI    10.3138/jsp.46.1.001

Choice's Compilation of Significant University Press Titles for Undergraduates, 2013-2014<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001a-gAe2KKOu_ABDJPEuE3QJMgI_YWCLdd10Ao1OH8MAsVoT6ao5vpMeSEck0jyTCsteAZ1h-iSmyH8tR0ZmScdojzBIoybvFHqo9tMYS8XVT_rlyQ0Frd-5Gu_V59YvFiBIviXw5sE601ckYUAty0oh6M5pHclWbpWr1kpVryV1ToJpBZze2tXjiSxYo7xXBiThgmhuDFEEhBkiMrXxTddet39ARsPT7w>
Tom Radko
DOI    10.3138/jsp.46.1.002

Monographic Purchasing Trends in Academic Libraries:<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001a-gAe2KKOu_ABDJPEuE3QJMgI_YWCLdd10Ao1OH8MAsVoT6ao5vpMeSEck0jyTCsteAZ1h-iSmyH8tR0ZmScdojzBIoybvFHqo9tMYS8XVT_rlyQ0Frd-5Gu_V59YvFizaSKV9txtqWwb0l3S3EM-QEL_X-YlmFZZnsI30uKjmcQopoKAKQTxDiAXTKOFofTVEr0faz3W5zgP7PPRiSiN3XU-UakW1e0>
Elisabeth A. Jones and Paul N. Courant
This article describes an exploratory study examining one contentious aspect of the relationship between university presses and academic libraries: the trends in purchases of university press books by academic libraries. The study provides an empirical basis for evaluating the frequent claim that the declining fortunes of university presses can be blamed primarily on declines in monographic purchasing by academic libraries. Our analysis indicates that this relationship is not clear-cut for at least three reasons: first, to the extent that purchasing reductions have occurred, they have occurred much more recently than many accounts have suggested; second, purchasing trends vary significantly between different sizes of libraries; and third, purchasing trends for university press books are very different from those for monographs in general. These findings cast substantial doubt on the proposition that changes in university library purchasing behaviour dating to the 1990s 'serials crisis' are principally responsible for the current economic malaise of university presses.
DOI    10.3138/jsp.46.1.003

>From Book Publishers to Authors:<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001a-gAe2KKOu_ABDJPEuE3QJMgI_YWCLdd10Ao1OH8MAsVoT6ao5vpMeSEck0jyTCsteAZ1h-iSmyH8tR0ZmScdojzBIoybvFHqo9tMYS8XVT_rlyQ0Frd-5Gu_V59YvFiZAlr_848KWlsVcloTVq-6YpaPRgFQ772vFzbGIFMNOKBzozVx8kKo2NY0WgsmcstVJFiOc36yzZKRVkzBV2ny8FZH-hs1N14>
Elea Giménez-Toledo, Sylvia Fernández-Gómez, Carlos Tejada-Artigas and Jorge Mañana-RodrÍquez
The publishing processes and standards in scholarly journals are much better known than those of the publishers of scholarly books. Since scholarly books are key channels of communication and academic assessment in the humanities and social sciences, information provided by publishers concerning their publishing processes is very important both for authors and panelists (at funding and evaluation agencies). This article focuses on the analysis of the transparency of publishers in relation to the information they offer to authors. The main objective is to identify and analyze the publishing practices of two hundred scholarly book publishers of social sciences and humanities with respect to the information that they provide on their Web sites about their publishing processes. A lack of information on these Web sites is the main finding of the study. Among Spanish publishers, only 11.2 per cent explicitly state that they have a review system by experts. At the international level, the situation improves, but the shortcomings are still evident. Some guidelines for publishers are outlined and proposed.
DOI    10.3138/jsp.46.1.004

How to Be an Effective Peer Reviewer:<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001a-gAe2KKOu_ABDJPEuE3QJMgI_YWCLdd10Ao1OH8MAsVoT6ao5vpMeSEck0jyTCsteAZ1h-iSmyH8tR0ZmScdojzBIoybvFHqo9tMYS8XVT_rlyQ0Frd-5Gu_V59YvFih1kNw4wX337rAVK_jf0OL41YvyfNbkLEusmvQvZbR9Y9sz1VMIOzRXfVOsK9XEuKE9UCAWxS4MWvqEv86ATZ3hKG-M7jC2rr>
Stephen K. Donovan
Peer review is an essential component of modern academic publishing, but it is a task that is commonly learnt by trial and error rather than a published set of rules or principals. To review a research paper requires a close knowledge of the subject area, but contrasting reviews by a generalist and an expert in the field may provide a better appreciation of a paper's merits to an editor than those of two experts. Reviews are there for the edification and information of the editor and to be passed on to the author; do your best to provide a constructive response.
DOI    10.3138/jsp.46.1.005

Book Reviews<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001a-gAe2KKOu_ABDJPEuE3QJMgI_YWCLdd10Ao1OH8MAsVoT6ao5vpMeSEck0jyTCsteAZ1h-iSmyH8tR0ZmScdojzBIoybvFHqo9tMYS8XVT_rlyQ0Frd-5Gu_V59YvFi8Kj8nsR92Dr4SZ8L9DTdtJMb36L9O0zfzIurqQt0wOLg_ng7jH_ay2HAggMXvi-sta0RrZ7U91W3Dm9nksCbh3-hrmOuCB9G>
Mary Jane Curry and Theresa Lillis, A Scholar's Guide to Getting Published in English: Critical Choices and Practical Strategies, reviewed by Steven E. Gump

Laura N. Gasaway, Copyright Questions and Answers for Information Professionals: From the Columns of Against the Grain, reviewed by Sanford G. Thatcher

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/asis-l/attachments/20140924/21cae792/attachment.html>