Historians' association faces criticism for proposal to embargo dissertations | Inside Higher Ed

"The American Historical Association has released a policy calling on history departments and university libraries to allow students to place embargoes on the online versions of Ph.D. dissertations in the field for up to six years. The association says that such a policy is needed to enable new Ph.D.s to successfully publish books based on their dissertations. But some historians are upset about the proposal, which they say isn't needed and runs counter to the scholarly mission of sharing research findings. The statement contains some phrases -- such as 'history has been and remains a book-based discipline' -- that were infuriating to those trying to promote digital scholarship and nontraditional forms of disseminating knowledge. One historian posted a comment on the AHA site saying of the draft policy: 'Stupid and stunting. The AHA should be recommending that departments change how they grant tenure -- citation should matter not publication.' Another wrote: 'What a foolish policy! The AHA was founded in the 19th century and is determined to remain there.' Still others, however, asserted that the AHA was responding to a genuine challenge facing some scholars. Historically, doctoral granting institutions have required copies of dissertations to be placed in the university library, so these documents have not been embargoed. But most of these library shelves haven't attracted much foot traffic, let alone the kind of traffic that digital copies enable. More recently, many universities have embraced some or all of the open access movement, requiring digital copies to be made available. The AHA proposed policy explains the problem this way: '[A]n increasing number of university presses are reluctant to offer a publishing contract to newly minted Ph.D.s whose dissertations have been freely available via online sources. Presumably, online readers will become familiar with an author’s particular argument, methodology, and archival sources, and will feel no need to buy the book once it is available.' The AHA is proposing that students designate that the digital versions of their dissertations be embargoed, but that Ph.D. students who take that option again be required to deposit a hard copy in the university library. 'History has been and remains a book-based discipline, and the requirement that dissertations be published online poses a tangible threat to the interests and careers of junior scholars in particular,' the statement says. 'Many universities award tenure only to those junior faculty who have published a monograph within six years of receiving the Ph.D. With the online publication of dissertations, historians will find it increasingly difficult to persuade publishers to make the considerable capital investments necessary to the production of scholarly monographs.' Much of the debate that has turned up online about the proposed policy focuses on whether the AHA is exaggerating the danger to new Ph.D.s of having their dissertations online ..."