132 College & Research Libraries March 1999 Book Reviews As a Tool for Assessing Publisher Reputation Matthew L. Jordy, Eileen L. McGrath, and John B. Rutledge This article reports on the authors’ efforts to develop a method of using book reviews to establish the reputations of publishers. The authors ex­ amined the quality of books published by de Gruyter, Greenwood, Doubleday, University of Georgia Press, and Louisiana State University Press as it is expressed in abstracts of book reviews published in the online version of Book Review Digest. The authors extracted a sample for each publisher from Book Review Digest, examined the sample, and compared each publisher sample against a control sample. Although it is true that most book reviews are positive, there are discernible varia­ tions in how reviewers express themselves about books. The study also looks at Choice as a source of book reviews, and briefly examines the relationship between price and quality. This study adds to the literature of the use of book reviews as a selection tool. “And as for the publishers, it is they collection development policy statements who build the fleet, plan the voy­ place the reputation of the publisher high age, and sail on, facing wreck, till on the list.1 The ALA itself has issued a they find every possible harbor that publication entitled Evaluating Informa­ will value their burden.”—Clarence tion: A Basic Checklist that asks the ques­ S. Day, The Story of the Yale Univer­ tion: What is the reputation of the pub­ sity Press Told by a Friend (1920). lisher, producer, or distributor?2 Specialized studies of selection method­ “Now Barrabas was a publisher.”— ology also recommend the reputation of Usually attributed to Byron. the publisher as a consideration. A study by John B. Rutledge and Luke Swindler ibrarians like publishers—ex­ cite “distinguished publisher” as a pri­ cept when it comes time to pay mary bibliographical consideration the bill. Librarians use the among other criteria for the selection of reputation of the publisher as monographs.3 If a theorem can achieve a prominent criterion in the selection of creedal status in librarianship, surely this books. Indeed, selection criteria found in one has. Matthew L. Jordy, former Technical Support Manager in Davis Library at the University of North Caro­ lina at Chapel Hill, is a PDVC Lab Intern at Cisco Systems; e-mail: [email protected]. Eileen L. McGrath is the Collection Management Librarian in the North Carolina Collection at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; e-mail: [email protected]. John B. Rutledge is the Bibliographer of West European Resources in Davis Library at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; e-mail: [email protected]. 132 Book Reviews as a Tool for Assessing Publisher Reputation 133 The Quest for Quality How Reputation Is Formed Librarians affirm the importance of the If the ALA justly and necessarily approves publisher’s reputation because they know using reputation as a selection category, how much the publisher can add to the how do book selectors go about forming quality of a published book, from the ini­ an impression of a publisher’s reputation? tial selection of manuscripts to the distri­ Estimates of reputation can come from the bution for external review, the provision personal experience of research in a spe­ of editorial suggestions, and copyediting. cific discipline. The authors concur with A conscientious editor can significantly Paul Metz and John Stemmer that “most improve a manuscript in many ways.4 bibliographers’ impressions of most pub­ lishers represent an amalgam of conscious But are there too many publishers conclusions and much more visceral im­ for even a subject specialist to know pressions that have been gathered over them all through direct or personal years of academic training, personal read­ experience? ing, discussions with academic faculty and other librarians, inspection of library The reputation of the publisher serves receipts, and use of book reviews.”5 Most as an indispensable shorthand in book bibliographers will know a small num­ selection. Rarely is there enough time to ber of publishing firms well, but a larger assess each monograph for quality or to number much less well. wait for reviews to appear. Indeed, the Because publisher reputation must be publisher’s name often provides the only relied on for book selection, selectors known quantity that selectors have to use should be familiar with a large number in making the decision. It is a necessary of publishers. But are there too many pub­ shorthand because selection book-in­ lishers for even a subject specialist to hand usually is not an option. Even book­ know them all through direct or personal in-hand selection might not work: librar­ experience? If this is the case (and the ians can ascertain that the book has a authors think it is), does this result in scholarly look to it, but assessing its rela­ purchases based on merely brand-name tive value for its field among hundreds recognition or, worse, ill-informed preju­ of competing titles is nearly impossible. dices? The reputation of each press prob­ Recent advances in Web technology now ably varies slightly among groups of allow a selector to check the table of con­ people, with scholars holding one view, tents or to read a summary, but this is publishers another, and librarians yet time-consuming. The author is, of course, another. Few librarians and still fewer another piece of information available to scholars actually have the opportunity to the selector, but the author’s name may examine hundreds of works by a single be completely unknown, as is the case press with the intent of forming an opin­ with most first-time authors. One also can ion as to the quality of the product. As search to see whether the author has pub­ Metz and Stemmer point out, there is a lished other monographs, but the process “paucity of information” about publisher soon becomes circular: with whom has he quality and reputation.6 or she published, and what reputations do those publishers have? A Trial Run Publisher reputation forms the basis The high prices charged by certain pub­ for some approval plans. One of the most lishers for their monographs strain our common types of plans is that designed ability to see publishers as partners in the to cover university presses; in effect, these educational process. Selectors must make plans give sanction to an entire class of decisions about expensive items with the publishers. But there are different “classes” same paucity of information, although of university presses. Reputations vary. Is increasingly there are timely electronic the quality consistently high? sources of information about book con­ 134 College & Research Libraries March 1999 tent. Still, it is time-consuming to pursue itself put certain limits on the investiga­ this information. With book prices for tion. For example, Book Review Digest in­ academic titles now averaging above cludes very few foreign-language titles. $57.85, do expensive monographs war­ Thus, this study confines itself to English- rant the cost?7 language titles. Initially, concerns about high prices for Many selectors make a mental list of monographs led the authors to choose the presses thought to be “questionable,” if publishing firm de Gruyter for study. not actually disreputable. It would have With de Gruyter titles costing an average been interesting to examine the quality of $158.89, this imprint begged for inves­ of certain controversial presses (which tigation. The authors first undertook a must remain nameless). Unfortunately, crude test to see if a method could be de­ Book Review Digest contained too few re­ veloped that looked promising. They ex­ views of their imprints to give a repre­ amined sixty book reviews of de Gruyter sentative and statistically valid sample. titles in the electronic version of Book Re­ This in itself is telling. view Digest, one of the FirstSearch group of databases.8 Reading sixty mainly posi­ Previous Work on Book Reviews tive reviews suggested that a de Gruyter A number of interesting library-focused product will very likely be of high qual­ studies of book reviews were identified ity. More important, examination of a before the study method was completed. manageable number of book reviews per­ Scholarly studies of book reviews have suaded the authors that developing a repeatedly raised issues that are troubling more rigorous method for using Book with regard to the application of book Review Digest as a tool to assess pub­ reviews for the purpose of book selection. lisher quality would lead to significant Important among them is the role of jour­ results. nal editors, who exercise a large measure of discretion (and power) in deciding Goals and Method which books are reviewed. There is never The trial run encouraged the notion of enough space to review all books pub­ developing a method for forming a rea­ lished. One cannot exclude the possibil­ sonable opinion about the quality of the ity that both book review editors and re­ books published by several presses. The viewers are subtly and unconsciously authors also wanted to test the hypoth­ influenced by the reputation of the pub­ esis that certain publishers consistently lisher. In all likelihood, many “bad books” produce high-quality monographs. Ide­ (however that might be defined) do not ally, the method would allow for a com­ make it past these gatekeepers. A sad cor­ parison of the reputation of various types ollary to this rule is that some good books of presses publishing books suitable for also are not reviewed because of inad­ research libraries. Finally, the authors equate marketing and promotion. wanted to examine the relationship be­ As mentioned earlier, book reviews tween their results and those of earlier tend to be positive.