Talk:ISBN/Archive 4

SBN curiosity

It is known that the ISBN-10 system grew out of the older SBN system. The latter had nine digits; and any valid SBN may be converted to a valid 10-digit ISBN simply by prepending with a zero. I have just found a book which has printed on the back "SBN 0 901115 32 0", so, other editors be warned: that is a typo, but whether for "SBN 901115 32 0" or for "ISBN 0 901115 32 0" cannot be known. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen books printed in the '60s that have an SBN-like number, that is, it seems to be an SBN, but the last three digits are the price of the book. Adding a 0 converts it into a 12-digit number (eg 0-508-60680-225).--Auric (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New ISBNs

The article now states that "An ISBN is assigned to each edition and variation (except reprintings) of a book." but in practice, publishers often retain the same ISBN for variations such as: increased cover price; new cover art; new introductions or afterwords; and resetting of the text. This may be because there is a fee for each ISBN assigned, or for convenience in the publisher's internal records. I know this is true from work at the ISFDB in which publications with such variations often are verified as having identical ISBNs. I don't have a published citable source which says this. I am prety sure that the official "Rules" for use of an ISBN state tha a new ISBN should be used for "each edition and variation", but AIAIK no entity monitors or enforces those rules. In an extreme case the Jack Vance Integral Edition published 44 books under 2 ISBNs (because they books were only sold as sets, and not sold at retail so ISBNs were not really needed). DES ^(talk) 17:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the statement quoted above in the article should be qualified in some way -- as it stands it is inaccurate in practice. DES ^(talk) 17:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ISBN should change if there is a new edition; a significant change to the content. A change in cover art is hardly that. A change in price? Even less reason to change the ISBN: since the ~~repeal of the net book act~~Net Book Agreement was declared illegal, retailers can charge what they like, and this has caused the disappearance of many independent bookshops. One ISBN for each different price would be unworkable. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel, how would you rephrase it? I assume that a publisher would not want to offer two different editions in their catalog with the same ISBN at two different prices. That would defeat the benefit of using the ISBN as a stock number. It's easier to imagine a book with an old cover being silently replaced by one with a new cover at the same price, with no separate orderability of the two versions. I imagine that the librarians of the world would be annoyed if the actual text of the book were modified (except for errata) with no change in ISBN. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The key word, IMO is "variation". In non-scholarly works, particularly in fiction, it is often very unclear what constitutes a "new edition". But a change in cover art, and surely the addition of significant text, such as a new introduction or afterword, is surely a variation. And pre-ISBN, several publishers (Ace Books for one) did indeed change their stock/catlog numbers with each price change. (I am referring to the printed cover price, which may or may not be the price actually charged by a book seller, but is considered a significant bibliographic datum for works of popular fiction. Note that there never was a Net Books act or equivalent in the US to my knowledge, but the cover price there is still significant.) And I have seen the same ISBN used on both printed and e-book versions of a text. DES ^(talk) 19:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would phrase it something like "An ISBN is in theory assigned to each edition and variation (except reprintings) of a book. Different publishers have different policies on how much variation causes them to use a changed ISBN or to describe a work as having a new edition, and no authority monitors or supervises these decisions." DES ^(talk) 19:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston The bibliographers of the world, of whom I am one, are indeed annoyed by changes in actual text with no change in ISBN, but in works of fiction at least, this is a common occurrence. I could find many examples. Publishers have no reason to care, since they generally don't permit or desire separate ordering of old variations, nor care about bibliography. Libraries often don't seem to care much about textual variations in works of popular fiction. This leaves specialist bibliographers and collectors as the people who get annoyed. I am not arguing for what "should" be true, merely that the article accurately describe the actual practice, in which ISBNs are often retained across significant variation, contrary to the pre-ISBN practice of many publishers, when a change of catalog number had little cost. DES ^(talk) 19:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems very logical, but probably hard to source. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed but the present wording, implying if not stating that any variation receives a new ISBN would also be hard to source, and is currently unsourced. I can find specific examples of works that retained the same ISBN despite textual changes, but I don't know off-hand of a source that discusses this in general. If the present statement were tagged with {{fact}}, how would it be sourced? DES ^(talk) 20:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ISBN FAQ at http://www.isbn-international.org/faqs/view/7 says "Different formats of an electronic or digital publication are regarded as different editions and therefore need different ISBNs in each instance when they are made separately available." But I can easily cite cases where a commercial publisher has used the same ISBN on printed and ebook editions of titles.
The ISBN FAQ at http://www.isbn-international.org/faqs/view/7 says "A (substantial) change of text requires a new ISBN, and if revisions have been made then the reverse of the title page should state that the book is a revised edition, and the new ISBN should be printed there." but again examples of commercial publishes not following this "rule" can be cited.
The ISBN FAQ at http://www.isbn-international.org/faqs/view/7 says "I would like to issue a new ISBN for marketing reasons. Is this permissible?" / "No, there is no change of text, format or binding which would justify a new ISBN." but I am reasonably sure I can find cases where a new ISBN was used without significant change to the text or format.

In short, the "rules" can not be relied on in all cases, and our articel should not imply that they can be. DES ^(talk) 20:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended my earlier comment following some checking. The point still stands though: prices, which at one time were fixed (and printed on the cover), are now fluid. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prices are indeed more fluid than they once were. In the US they were never as fixed as they once were in the UK. They are, at least in the US, still printed on book covers, and most discount booksellers discvount at a fixed percentage, so that when the cover price goes up, so does the actual sale price.

But cover prices are really a side issue, my major point is that changes which are supposed to result in new ISBNs, such as addition or alteration of significant text, or the issuance of an ebook version of a book, in a significant number of cases do not in fact result in a new ISBN, thus a reader or collector cannot reliably infer that an identical ISBN means identical binding, or identical content. "Variation", in the book collecting world, is a term at least as technical as "edition" and a work with identical content but a different cover is a "variation" in that sense. A work with significantly changed content, such as a different introduction, is also a variation. DES ^(talk) 21:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me that the ISBNs get sold to the publishers, and after that, there is not much further control that the Agency can exert. So we have a good source as to what the recommendations are, but after that, we have no source as to what the publishers do with the ISBNs. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is so (Well in theory the Agency could only offer ISBNs to publishers who would sign a a contract to comply with certain rules. But they do not do this, and even if they did, monitoring would probably be impractical.) But our article should not state as fact that publishers use ISBNs in (and only in) certain ways where there is no source saying that they do, and there are citable examples of at least occasional contrary behavior. (For example Baen Books normally issues their ebook editions with the same ISBN as the corresponding first-issued printed edition, often a hardcover edition. I can cite specific titles and back this up with ISFDB records that are individually verified.) If it is needed, I can with greater effort find specific instances where altered text did not result in a changed ISBN. DES ^(talk) 21:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a {{fact}} tag on the statement as it stands, because it effectively says that a new ISBN is always assigned to a new variation. DES ^(talk) 21:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the topic of book identifier....

These are all we have got

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=book+identifier&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en

--222.67.212.133 (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow....this topic has limited info

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+book+identifier+filetype%3Apdf&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&oq=

--222.67.212.133 (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22book+identifier%22+edu.au&btnG=Google+Search&meta=cr%3DcountryAU&aq=f&oq=

--222.67.212.133 (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22book+identifier%22+edu.ca&btnG=Google+Search&meta=cr%3DcountryCA&aq=f&oq=

--222.67.212.133 (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22book+identifier%22+ac.nz&btnG=Google+Search&meta=cr%3DcountryNZ&aq=f&oq=

--222.67.212.133 (talk) 09:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Today, I appeal again for another {{Google scholar]] equivalent--222.67.212.133 (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear from the above what is intended here. Plus, {{Google scholar]] is invalid wikicode - should this be {{Google scholar}} or Google Scholar? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of Document identifier is based on the following....

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=document+identifier&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en

--222.67.212.133 (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These document identifiers seem to be a computer science term that are unlikely to be a household word among our readers. I see no urgent need to distinguish document identifiers from book identifiers, and no need to link to a definition of document identifier from this article. Confusion of document and book identifiers is unlikely. And there is certainly no need to refer to Document identifier in a hatnote when no article yet exists on that topic. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the hatnote for now. Possibly there is an existing bluelink that covers the same topic? (I've no time to research thoroughly, but here's a list from a quick search for potential targets: Global Document Type Identifier, Public identifier, Digital object identifier, Publisher Item Identifier, or one of the items listed within Identifier). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cost of registering ISBNs

A recent edit added the text "It costs $125.00 to buy a single ISBN.", with ref citing the web page https://www.myidentifiers.com/index.php?ci_id=1567&la_id=1 I have removed these, because it's an agency's sales page: the price of $125.00 is not just for one ISBN, but includes various other products from the agency concerned. Checking elsewhere on the same site, for example https://www.myidentifiers.com/index.php?ci_id=1569 or https://www.myidentifiers.com/index.php?ci_id=1479 shows that you can buy blocks of ISBNs - for example, 1000 for $1000.00 To give the price of one ISBN, therefore, is misleading unless the price for other quantities is also given, as well as the price from other agencies. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, that's spam. Especially as at least in some places, such as Hong Kong, ISBNs are free on application. [1] Barsoomian (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information not organized correctly

the line

"957+986 for Republic of China and 962+988 for Hong Kong"

is inserted into a section of text enumerating single digit country codes. I am not sure of the author's intent in adding that information. Should it be deleted or relocated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.200.178 (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Have added {{clarify}} tag; hopefully somebody with knowledge will reword it. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

book may appear without a printed ISBN

The article says "Occasionally, a book may appear without a printed ISBN if it is printed privately or the author does not follow the usual ISBN procedure; however, this is usually later rectified." I don't buy it. I suspect the number of editions of books published without ISBNs every year outnumbers the number of editions published with. All sorts of internal workplace guides, family albums, etc. are printed, all sans ISBN, and most of them never get reprinted. Also, I suspect that most of the material that gets printed without an ISBN, by any count, never sees a new reprint with an ISBN, if for no other reason than the fact that most books don't see a reprint.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a book published without an ISBN is because the distributor use it as a censorship. They do not distribute ISBN to some unwanted publisher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Internationalisbn (talk • contribs) 15:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An ISBN is typically issued by the publisher; part of the number identifies them. The <ref> in the article actually states:

This is rectified, if the book comes to its notice, by the SBNA [Standard Book Numbering Agency], which subsequently allocates a number, which, in the case of British publications, appears in due course in Books in print. A few books with no ISBN are apparently never picked up by the SBNA and never recorded in Books in print.

I will change the article to read "... however, this can be rectified later." and will remove the {{Dubious}}. HairyWombat 21:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E-books and ISBN

Some interesting observations about ebooks + ISBN's from Eric Hellman: "What is an ebook anyway?" Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Publisher IDs

The article says that there is no public list of mappings from number to publisher. Why don't we start one as a wiki page? I think it would be easy to get the most important entries entered ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.231.64.64 (talk) 06:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you obtain the information from? If you were to pick up a book at random, say

Woods, Dan; Thoeny, Peter. Wikis for Dummies. Indianapolis: Wiley Publishing. ISBN 978-0-470-04399-8.

and then some others from the same publisher, you might conclude that 978-0-470- is always Wiley Publishing. But this would be original research, which is not permitted. We therefore need a reliable third-party source, which doesn't exist... --Redrose64 (talk) 11:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative to a non-existing RS would be to have a wiki page that is not a Wikipedia page. The rules on original research are for this encyclopedia and have no bearing on other wiki projects. Kdammers (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]