我先前在10月9日發布一篇「倫敦大學圖書館掉論文不是什麼奇事」，裡面提到倫敦大學SHL圖書館網頁查詢到有2005年6月底到2009年12月底已獲頒學位的313本論文，至今Not yet received（圖書館尚未收到），用以佐證蔡英文並不是倫敦大學圖書館搞丟的唯一一本論文。
這個說法一再引來質疑，質疑者認為那313本論文的條目顯示論文早就擺在SHL圖書館的倉庫，只要申請就能調出來供讀者取閱。甚至其中某些條目顯示Status（狀態）為Available（可取得），證明論文早就到了圖書館。
雖然我出示多張截圖顯示真正擺在倉庫的書籍應有的條目格式，諸如有明確的架位（Location）、分類碼（Class mark）等等，但質疑者還是不信，主張我是故意曲解條目註記。
甚至有人主張Class mark底下註記Not yet received是指尚未取得分類碼，並不是圖書館尚未收到論文。
我則反問，如果此說屬實，為什麼這批2005年到2009年的論文，到現在已經10到14年了，還沒取得分類碼？313本沒有分類碼的論文擺在倉庫裡，圖書館怎麼查找？有誰看過圖書館內可供借閱的藏書會沒有分類碼？但質疑者只回說他哪知道，要我自己去問倫敦大學圖書館。
老實說，我和質疑者都是自行解讀圖書館條目，所以，這樣繼續吵下去永遠各執一詞。
於是，我決定聽從質疑者的建議，直接寫信去問倫敦大學參議會圖書館、也就是以前的總圖，SHL（Senate House Library），就是彭主播也去過的那一間。
大概是因為我提出了313本論文Not yet received的證據，讓他們覺得此事非同小可，又擔心我這個台灣土包子搞不懂他們倫敦大學悠久歷史的複雜體制，於是由圖書館主管Head of Library Space & Collection Management回了一封幾乎可以當期刊論文發表的長信，從1990年代之前的倫大總圖一直到現今SHL處理論文的制度沿革，做了一番詳細說明。
我把這封信翻譯成中文，和原信英文、原信部份截圖一起貼在本篇最底下，供有興趣的人仔細研究。
這封信的主要重點如下：
第一，在2009年之前，倫大所有博論都要呈交兩份複本給倫大高階學位辦公室（Higher Degrees Office），再由該辦公室轉送一份給當時的總圖、也就是現在的SHL，一份給學生所屬學院。但若是不屬學院的論文，則兩份都由總圖保存。若是特定領域論文，如史學、法學、古典學，原本由學院保存的論文則轉送各研究院圖書館，如法學類的IALS。
這裡可以順便回答疑英派的一個問題：論文不是由學生交給圖書館，而是由高階學位辦公室轉交。
之前SHL回覆網路上某人提問時還提到，論文是從口試委員那兒送過來。所以，合起來就是口試委員送交學位辦公室，辦公室才送交圖書館。學生沒有出現在這流程中。
第二，一直到1990年代，由於論文數量龐大，尚處於手工時代的SHL必須在收到紙本論文後，查對論文資料，由職員一筆一筆用打字機打成書目，內容包括作者（author）、題目（title）、架位（location）、分類碼（classmark）、註記（note）、主題（subject）等等，既耗時又常導致嚴重延誤。
於是，在21世紀頭十年的前中期，也就是2000年到2005年前後，拜電腦化、自動化與網路化之賜，改為每月由高階學位辦公室送一份輸出檔，其中包括書目所需的所有資料，直接輸入圖書館管理系統。接著，館員只要等紙本論文送到，把條碼和frontsheet貼進論文裡，然後再把條碼資料加進書目就行了。
第三，接下來就要談到重點了。這樣當然館員輕鬆許多，但電腦資料來得快，紙本論文卻沒那麼快。
論文在兩名口試委員的報告送達高階學位辦公室之後，學位就頒發下來，資料隨即在每月月底（這就是為什麼這些Not yet received的條目前面會有個Passed dat-month-year，例如30-06-2005）送達圖書館，但實體紙本論文卻還沒送回高階學位辦公室，更遑論圖書館。
於是，圖書館就在這些論文的書目中加註了Passed day-month-year. Not yet received的紀錄。
所以，這裡就可以先回答某些質疑者認為Not yet received並不是指論文尚未收到，而是尚未收到分類碼。你們這種說法是錯的，Not yet received就是指論文尚未收到。
那些NYR條目之所以會有Location、Status、Stack Service、Ref.only等等的標示，只是配合每個月底送來的論文資料檔，填上這些既定格式的暫定書目資料而已，實際上那些Location標示的倉庫裡並沒有擺著這些實體論文，當然更不可能Available。
還有，學位只要口委回報就可以頒發了，不用等到圖書館簽收論文。所以才會有學位及論文的電腦資料檔已經送到圖書館，圖書館建了暫定書目檔，卻還沒收到論文的情況。
第四，那為什麼現在還有2005年6月底到2009年12月底313本論文Not yet received呢？都這麼久了，不是應該早就收到論文、可以像其他論文那樣銷掉這些註記了嗎？
問題出在2009年2月，倫敦大學決定SHL未來不用再負責保存各學院論文，所以學生也不用再呈交兩份論文複本，甚至SHL也不用再保存以往館藏的各學院論文，SHL和各學院圖書館一起擬訂計劃「清掉」（de-duplicate）SHL所保存的實體論文。
論文清掉之後，SHL就不再保留完整的書目內容，這些論文的書目不會有架位（Location）、分類碼（Class mark）、狀態（Status）等等資料，而是加註Senate House Library no longer holds copies of theses produced by colleges within the University of London and readers requiring access to a thesis should approach the relevant college（參議會圖書館不再保存大學內各學院所產製論文的複本，需要取得論文的讀者應洽詢相關學院）這樣的說明。
而2009年之後的論文，SHL連這樣的書目都不會有，完全不會有紀錄，因為各學院不再把學位頒授資料傳送到SHL來。
但在這之前，有些論文已經開始走流程，所以論文資料檔案已經傳輸到SHL，但之後實體論文卻不再送到SHL，結果就是那313本Not yet received的論文條目。
但這位主管解釋，這並不表示這313本論文不見了，而是直接送到各學院圖書館去了，SHL根本沒收到，或是送到了SHL，但SHL不做任何處理就轉送各學院圖書館。
這就可以說明為什麼2011年蔡英文曾送一本論文給SHL，SHL不收存轉送給IALS，而且也沒製作書目。並不是如某些人所言，SHL認為那不夠格當作論文而打了回票、扔給IALS，而是因為2009年之後SHL就不館藏各學院論文、也不製作新的書目。
至於為什麼是轉送給IALS，而不是轉送給蔡英文所屬的LSE？也許有機會再請教那位主管。
所以，到目前為止，雖然我對書目的解讀是對的，但我主張這313本論文不見了，似乎是錯的？
於是，我開始認真針對這313個論文條目一一進行檢查。
這位主管提供我另一個查詢書目的管道：https://discover.libraryhub.jisc.ac.uk/，這個Jisc書目查詢系統涵蓋了英國各學術圖書館館藏，包括倫敦大學各學院圖書館，所以只要輸入資料，可以一次看到這本論文到底在哪幾間圖書館有館藏，包括實體和電子檔，其中實體指的是各學院、各大學圖書館，電子檔指的是大英圖書館的British EThOS。
但這位主管也附上但書：倫敦大學有些學院的圖書館並沒有被納入這個系統，因此必須直接到各該圖書館查詢。
於是，我一一輸入這313筆論文資料，製作了一份表格，比對每一筆論文在哪些圖書館有實體館藏，以及在EThOS有沒有電子檔館藏。
我先篩選出沒有實體館藏的論文，其次從這些沒有實體館藏的論文找出有EThOS電子館藏的，上EThOS查出該論文屬於哪所學院，然後再上該學院圖書館查詢，確認該學院到底有沒有該論文的實體館藏。
但有許多無實體館藏的論文連EThOS都沒有電子館藏，所以完全無法知道該論文屬於哪所學院。有些雖有EThOS電子館藏，但並非標示某學院，只標示University of London，而倫敦大學校本部論文的館藏地點就是SHL，但SHL已經把這些論文標示為Not yet received。所以，這兩種論文也屬於查無實體館藏的論文。
最後，我清點出131本這樣的論文，其中包括4本知道所屬學院、但在所屬學院圖書館館藏系統確認沒有紙本論文館藏；9本在EThOS系統標示為University of London；5本不知所屬學院，但在某研究院如IALS有第二份複本的實體館藏，雖然有一份實體館藏，但問題是應該送往SHL或學院的那第一份複本不知去向；113本除了SHL的Noy yet received標示之外，在Jisc系統查不到任何實體館藏地點，也沒有EThOS的電子館藏可供查詢所屬學院。
所以，雖然沒有313本論文不知去向，但還是有131本沒有送來SHL、但應該送去某學院圖書館的紙本論文查不到去處。
這裡我應該先為自己先前草率推論這313本論文全都不知去向而向大家致歉。沒有313本這麼多，頂多只有131本。
也許有人會說，這131本論文最後可能還是會在某個學院的圖書館裡找到。
好吧，樂觀不是壞事。但這131本之中，至少有4本知道所屬學院，但上該學院圖書館查詢系統，卻找不到紙本館藏的紀錄，甚至其中就有2本是LSE的論文，LSE的圖書館館藏書目直接標示館內沒有這兩本論文。
這兩本2006年和2007年的LSE論文各只有兩筆電子館藏條目，也就是童溫層很喜歡講的戴學位帽Dissertation條目，卻缺了代表有紙本館藏、編有F開頭書碼的Book條目。
所謂F開頭書碼的Book條目長這樣：
這有兩種可能：第一種是這兩本論文打從一開始就沒有紙本送到圖書館來，只有電子檔進來，所以有電子檔的Dissertation條目，卻沒有F開頭的Book條目；第二種可能是紙本有送來，但還沒編上F開頭的Book書碼。
第二種可能應該可以排除。
理由一是這兩本論文分別是2006年和2007年的論文，過了12、13年，還沒編給它們書碼？連今年才送進來的蔡英文紙本論文都有了F10034的紙本書碼了。
理由二是Dissertation的條目最底下清清楚楚寫著：
The item you searched for isn't currently available from LSE Library
If you are a current LSE student or staff member login to request this item from another library
如果館內有書，只是還沒編碼，怎麼會叫人去向他館申閱呢？應該會請讀者等待編碼完成吧。
另外要先聲明一點：這兩本論文在LSE THESES論文網上都查得到電子檔，但這裡要探討的是紙本論文到哪去了，有電子檔不表示有紙本。2006年和2007年的論文電子檔並不是掃描而來，是學生原本就有電子檔，交論文時一手交紙本、一手交電子檔。
另外兩本館內查不到紙本館藏的論文分屬SOAS和UCL，SOAS的查得到電子檔，就是沒有紙本；UCL更直接，根本就查不到這本論文。
所以，結論就是：倫敦大學圖書館確實會把論文弄丟，至少2005年6月到2009年12月獲頒學位的論文中，就有4本確定既不在SHL，也不在所屬學院圖書館，其中LSE就占了兩本。
其他還有127本論文去向成謎，其中又有多少最後會確定失蹤呢？
這還是因為SHL有紀錄到Not yet received，才追查得到有問題，那其他沒有註記到的論文呢？
2009年之前原本收藏在SHL的歷年論文，因為政策改變而被SHL「清掉」的過程中，或者轉送他館、或者「處理」掉了，會不會有極少數紙本論文不慎失蹤呢？從前面那4本、乃至131本的例子來看，這並非完全不可能。
而在此同時，SHL也清掉這些陳年論文的書目資料、加上註記，在大量改動書目的過程中，又有多少書目就此失蹤了呢？如果真有書目因此被刪除，那麼，除了論文作者自己去查，是不會有人知道有這些原本存在而後來消失的書目。
疑英派的人當然會說：就那麼巧，同屆106位博士就只有蔡英文遇上這種事。
對啊，就那麼巧啊，前面那兩本LSE論文，一本是2007年，一本是2006年，搞不好也是各自同屆之中遇上這種事的唯一一本。
以下為SHL主管回信中、英文及原信部分截圖：
中文
馬汀好心把你的詢問轉發給我，因為或許我可以針對此一狀況及這些館藏紀錄的意涵做稍微更進一步的解釋。
根據校史，任何獲得倫敦大學頒授學位的博士論文都呈交了兩份實體複本。一份會保存在大學的總圖書館——倫敦大學圖書館（University of London Library，幾年前我們改名為參議會圖書館［Senate House Library］之前的名稱），第二份則會被送往呈交該論文之學生所就讀的相關學院——如國王學院、亞非學院（SOAS）、倫敦政經學院（LSE）、皇家哈洛威學院等等。
上述說法有許多例外，這些例外與你所指涉的特定案例無關，但為求完整，我現在還是會一併說明。首先，倫敦大學有一些「內部」論文——也就是說，第二份複本無學院可送的那些論文。在這種情況下，兩份複本都會由參議會圖書館∕倫敦大學圖書館保存。另一種例外是特定主題領域的學院論文。因為倫敦大學有許多專精特定主題領域的研究院（https://www.sas.ac.uk/）——例如歷史研究院（IHR，以史學為範圍）、高等法學研究院（IALS，以法學為範圍）、古典研究院（以古典學為範圍）——送往「學院」的論文複本（也就是第二份複本）如果是涉及這些Boards of Study的領域，就會被送往上面所提到的研究院圖書館，而不送往學院。
回到你問的問題。
到了1990年代，參議會圖書館每學年通常都會從高階學位辦公室（監督倫敦大學高階學位所有相關工作的行政辦公室）收到排列起來約有一百公尺長的新論文。圖書館從高階學位辦公室收到每一本新論文時，我們圖書館職員當中就有人必須在我們的圖書館館藏書目中，以手工用打字機為每一份新論文製作一份館藏書目紀錄，把作者（author）、題目（title）、架位（location）、分類碼（classmark）、註記（note）、主題（subject）等等打上去。這些資訊全都取自於高階學位辦公室隨每一份論文送來的紙本文件。顯然這是一個非常耗時的過程，導致圖書館必須投入一名職員全職製作新論文的館藏紀錄——即使如此，到了尖峰時段，還是造成館藏書目建入系統並可供使用的工作延誤與積壓。
現在時間來到21世紀頭十年的初∕中期，隨著紀錄與系統更加自動化與網路連結（不用像以前那樣靠紙本檔案），圖書館與高階學位辦公室研究我們是否有可能收到最新學位的資料輸出檔，而不必手工打字輸入每一份論文的全部資訊。最後的結果是圖書館的系統小組每月從高階學位辦公室收到一份學位頒授的資料輸出檔——這給了我們在每個欄位所需要的所有資料——作者、題目、學位等等。這份資料接著就會輸入我們的圖書館管理系統。結果顯而易見，論文館藏書目製作的工作現在就快得多了——製作館藏書目的人只需要從新到圖書中找出相關實體複本，把實體條碼和frontsheet貼進論文裡面，然後把那個條碼資訊加進館藏紀錄。
然而，總是免不了有可能出現問題或例外——而Not Yet Received的紀錄就是其中之一。如你或已知曉，實體論文自然是經學院口試委員（我相信通常是一名大學校內委員和一名校外委員）口試。因此，總是有可能論文在口試委員報告送達後獲頒學位，而實體複本還沒收回到高階學位辦公室——以及之後的圖書館。結果，Passed – Not Yet Received的註記就被加進了館藏紀錄，以顯示儘管學位已由大學頒授，所要保存的實體複本還沒收到。
某些館藏紀錄之所以到現在還顯示Passed – Not Yet Received，得歸因於2009年以降倫敦大學高階學位頒授的改變。2009年2月，大學的學院會議決定廢止必須呈交兩份論文複本的規定，也決定總圖（就是我們，現在的參議會圖書館）不再保存學院論文複本。做出此一決定，部分的時空背景是有越來越多論文能以電子檔提供（或者透過各機構的線上館藏，或者透過大英圖書館的EThOS服務）。更進一步的決定是，參議會圖書館也將不再保存過去的學院論文複本，並推動一項計劃，和各學院圖書館一起清掉參議會圖書館實體保存的學院論文。這就是為什麼我們有許多論文館藏紀錄（當論文來自學院，例如UCL、LSE、國王學院等等）現在都標示此一註記：Senate House Library no longer holds copies of theses produced by colleges within the University of London and readers requiring access to a thesis should approach the relevant college（參議會圖書館不再保存大學內各學院所產製論文的複本，需要取得論文的讀者應洽詢相關學院），指示讀者前往正確的學院圖書館。更有一項決定是高階學位不再由大學高階學位辦公室集中管理，而是下放到學院層級。基於這些理由，我們的圖書館館藏書目中沒有2009年之後頒授的學院論文館藏紀錄——因為我們不再收到資訊或實體複本。
由於在參議會圖書館停止保存學院論文複本那時候，有許多論文已經開始走流程，你所指出的條目，大多就是我們收到論文的上傳紀錄但從未實際收到或保存實體複本的例子——事實上這些實體複本只往相關學院圖書館去。你所指出的館藏紀錄其實應該從我們的館藏書目中移除（如果我們自己沒有收到關於該論文出處——也就是學院——進一步資訊的話），或是如果我們能確定該論文是從哪個學院來的，我們就能把前述註記加入館藏紀錄，並按照我們處理我們不再保存之其他早期論文的相同方式，指示圖書館使用者前往該學院圖書館。情況就是這樣，你這裡所找到的這些館藏紀錄就是我們正開始不再保存學院論文複本的那時候收到紀錄的那些論文，而且這些論文去了自己學院的圖書館。此外，由於帝國學院在2005到2007年間脫離聯合制的倫敦大學，我們所關注的論文中有些就是同樣直接送往帝國學院而參議會圖書館從未收到的例子。
舉例來說，看看你所提到的最後一份論文——Hajime Sato所著，上這個館藏書目系統https://discover.libraryhub.jisc.ac.uk/去看，可能可以看到該論文是亞非學院論文，而且他們的圖書館收有複本：
https://discover.libraryhub.jisc.ac.uk/search?q=accumulation%20and%20restructuring&rn=8
我給你的館藏書目連結是出自Jisc所運作的館藏書目系統，是個一次提供多種英國學術圖書館館藏書目的搜尋點。底下是更多的例子：
Gwenzi, Edwin Kufa.
An Afro-Centric Approach.
Passed 30-06-2006, Not yet received
King’s College
https://discover.libraryhub.jisc.ac.uk/search?author=gwenzi%2C+edwin&title=&publisher=&publisher-place=&isn=&date=&subject=↦-scale=&keyword=
Vashisht, Arvind.
Exploring the absorption and clinical effects of natural progesterone cream when used in isolation and in combination with oestradiol to form a continuous hormone replacement therapy.
Passed 31-12-2009, Not yet received
Imperial College
https://discover.libraryhub.jisc.ac.uk/search?author=vashisht%2C+arvind&title=&publisher=&publisher-place=&isn=&date=&subject=↦-scale=&keyword=
Zubek, Radoslaw.
Europeanizing from the Centre : Core Executive Institutions and the Transposition of the European Community Legislation in Poland 1997 - 2002.
Passed 31-08-2005, Not yet received
LSE
https://discover.libraryhub.jisc.ac.uk/search?author=zubek%2C%20radoslaw&rn=3
Fish, Sheila Anne.
Children, Media and Class in Post-Suharto Indonesia.
Passed 31-10-2005, Not yet received
SOAS
https://discover.libraryhub.jisc.ac.uk/search?q=author%3A%20fish%2C%20sheila&rn=1
Heilbronn, Ruth.
Teacher Education and Training : The development of practical judgement through 'practiceship'.
Passed 31-07-2007, Not yet received
UCL
https://discover.libraryhub.jisc.ac.uk/search?q=author%3A%20heilbronn%2C%20ruth&rn=5
Kirmse, Stefan Bastian.
Youth in Post-Soviet Central Asia : Exploring Transition, Globalization and Youth Culture in the Ferghana Valley.
Passed 30-11-2009, Not yet received
SOAS
https://discover.libraryhub.jisc.ac.uk/search?author=Kirmse%2C%20Stefan%20Bastian&rn=1
另一點要註明的是，由於論文的學院複本並未來到參議會圖書館，現在只存放在學院自己那兒，不同的學院以不同的方式保存並記錄他們的論文產品——而且並非全部都能在我給你的這個館藏書目系統蒐尋得到。
我可以給你一個這種例子如下：
Parker, Matthew Daniel.
Identification and functional characterisation of prostate cancer biomarkers.
Passed 31-12-2009, Not yet received
Institute of Cancer Research
http://books.icr.ac.uk/HeritageScripts/Hapi.dll/retrieve2?SetID=0C756E56-17F8-4102-B711-B4968AB57070&SearchTerm0=Identification%20and%20functional%20characterisation&SearchPrecision=20&SortOrder=0&Offset=4&Direction=%2E&Dispfmt=F&Dispfmt_b=B01&Dispfmt_f=F03&DataSetName=LIVEDATA
這是一份出自癌症研究院的論文，但因為該研究院在Jisc網址上沒有自己的館藏書目條列，找到這份論文的唯一方式是直接去查他們的圖書館館藏書目。
我沒有查過所有仍顯示Passed … Not Yet Received的論文，但這是對這些館藏紀錄的原則性解釋。既然我們知道了這些有問題的館藏紀錄，我們將會盡力加以更正∕從我們的館藏書目中移除，因為我們從那個時期起就不再保存學院論文，而且可能在這其中大多數的案例中，我們或者從未收到論文（也就是它們直接送去相關學院），或者收到後直接送往學院圖書館保管，我們自己不做進一步動作。
我希望這個回覆解答了你的問題。我真的要為我這個回覆的冗長表示歉意，但我覺得你應該要有一個盡可能完整的解釋，因為儘管倫敦大學各學院的高階學位頒授與論文保管在大學內部理所當然是眾所皆知，但出了大學之就不是一件那麼眾所皆知之事。
如果你真的還有任何進一步的問題，請務必與我聯繫。
英文
Martyn has kindly forwarded me your enquiry as perhaps I can explain a bit further about the situation and what these records mean. It will though be quite a long explanation – as I need to tell you about some of the previous history of thesis holdings at the Library, so please bear with me.
Historically it was the case that any doctoral theses awarded by the University of London had two physical copies submitted. One copy would be retained at the central University library – the University of London Library (as we were called before our name change to Senate House Library some years ago) while the second copy would be sent to the relevant college that the student in question studied at – so King’s College, SOAS, LSE, Royal Holloway and so on.
There were a number of exceptions to the above which aren’t relevant to the particular cases you’re referring to but which I’ll cover now just to be complete. The first is that there were some “internal” theses to the University of London – that is to say theses where there was no college to send the second copy to. In these instances both copies would have been held by Senate House Library / University of London Library. The other exception is for college theses in certain subject fields. Because the University of London has a number of specialist institutes in certain subject areas (https://www.sas.ac.uk/ ) – e.g. the Institute of Historical Research (IHR – covering History), the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (IALS – covering Law), the Institute of Classical Studies (covering Classics) – the “college” thesis copy (i.e. the second copy) for theses in those Boards of Study would have been sent to the institute library in question rather than to the college.
Returning to your question.
By the 1990’s Senate House Library was typically receiving something like 100 metres of new theses every academic year from the Higher Degrees Office (the administrative office overseeing all of the work around higher degrees at the University Of London). At this point when the Library received each new thesis from the Higher Degrees Office, one of our Library staff would have to manually create and type in a catalogue record for each new thesis on our Library catalogue – author, title, location, classmark, note, subject and so on – just as you can see in the records. All of this information was taken from the paperwork that the Higher Degrees Office would send along with each thesis. Clearly this was a very time consuming process and resulted in the Library having to dedicate one full-time member of staff to cataloguing new theses – and even then at peak times this still resulted in delays and backlogs in getting everything catalogued onto the system and available.
Winding forward now to the early/mid 2000’s and with records and systems being far more automated and connected (rather than the paper files that had gone before) the Library investigated with the Higher Degrees Office whether it was possible for us to receive a data export of the latest degree award information rather than having to manually type in all the information for each thesis. The eventual result was that the systems team in the Library would receive a monthly data export of the degree award information from the Higher Degrees Office – giving us all of the data for each of the fields we needed – author, title, degree and so on. This would then be imported onto our Library Management System. The result was obviously that the work cataloguing theses was now much faster – all the cataloguer had to do was find the relevant physical thesis from the new arrivals, stick a physical barcode and frontsheet into the thesis and then add that barcode information to the record.
Inevitably however there is always some scope for problems or exceptions – and the “Not Yet Received” records are one of those. As you may be aware, the physical theses were naturally examined by academic examiners (normally, I believe, one internal to the University and one external). It was always possible therefore for a thesis to be awarded following the report of the examiners before the physical copies were received back by the Higher Degrees Office – and later by the Library. As a result the notes “Passed – Not Yet Received” were added to the record to show that although the degree had been awarded by the University, the physical copies for retention had not yet been received back.
The reason why some records still show as being “Passed – Not Yet Received” has to do with the changes to the awarding of Higher Degrees in the University Of London from 2009 onwards. In February 2009, the Collegiate Council of the University decided to rescind the requirement for two physical copies of theses to be submitted and also decided that the central library (now us, as Senate House Library) would no longer hold copies of college theses. This decision was made in part given the background that so many more theses were being made available electronically (either via institutional online repositories or via the British Library’s EThOS service). It was further decided that Senate House Library would also no longer hold the historic copies of college theses either and a project was undertaken to de-duplicate Senate House Library’s physical holdings of college theses with the college libraries themselves. It is for this reason that many of our thesis records (where the thesis was from a college – e.g. UCL, LSE, King’s etc.) are now marked with the note “Senate House Library no longer holds copies of theses produced by colleges within the University of London and readers requiring access to a thesis should approach the relevant college,” and directs readers to whichever college library is appropriate. It was further decided that higher degrees would no longer be administered centrally by the University Higher Degrees Office but would be devolved to college level. It is for these reasons that we do not have records on our Library catalogue for college theses awarded after 2009 – as we no longer receive either the information or the physical copies.
Since there were many theses already underway at the point that Senate House Library stopped holding copies of college theses most of the items you have identified are instances where we received the uploaded record for the thesis but where we never actually received or retained the physical copy – and where in fact the physical copies only went to the relevant college library concerned. The records you have identified should really have been either removed from our catalogue (if we ourselves had received no further information as to the origin – i.e. college – of the thesis) or, if we were able to determine which college the thesis was from we could add that note to the record and direct library users to that college library in the same way that we did with the other earlier theses that we no longer hold. It just happens that these ones you have found here are those that we received the records for just at the time that we were no longer holding college thesis copies and which went on to the college libraries themselves. In addition to this, with Imperial College leaving the federal University of London between 2005 and 2007, some of the theses concerned are instances where those theses too went directly to Imperial and were never received by Senate House Library.
Looking for instance at the last thesis you mentioned – by Hajime Sato, looking on this catalogue https://discover.libraryhub.jisc.ac.uk/ it is possible to see that the thesis is a SOAS thesis and that there is copy held in their Library:
https://discover.libraryhub.jisc.ac.uk/search?q=accumulation%20and%20restructuring&rn=8
The catalogue link I have sent you there is from a catalogue operated by Jisc over here and which provides a single search point for many UK academic library catalogues. Below are some more examples:
Gwenzi, Edwin Kufa.
An Afro-Centric Approach.
Passed 30-06-2006, Not yet received
King’s College
https://discover.libraryhub.jisc.ac.uk/search?author=gwenzi%2C+edwin&title=&publisher=&publisher-place=&isn=&date=&subject=↦-scale=&keyword=
Vashisht, Arvind.
Exploring the absorption and clinical effects of natural progesterone cream when used in isolation and in combination with oestradiol to form a continuous hormone replacement therapy.
Passed 31-12-2009, Not yet received
Imperial College
https://discover.libraryhub.jisc.ac.uk/search?author=vashisht%2C+arvind&title=&publisher=&publisher-place=&isn=&date=&subject=↦-scale=&keyword=
Zubek, Radoslaw.
Europeanizing from the Centre : Core Executive Institutions and the Transposition of the European Community Legislation in Poland 1997 - 2002.
Passed 31-08-2005, Not yet received
LSE
https://discover.libraryhub.jisc.ac.uk/search?author=zubek%2C%20radoslaw&rn=3
Fish, Sheila Anne.
Children, Media and Class in Post-Suharto Indonesia.
Passed 31-10-2005, Not yet received
SOAS
https://discover.libraryhub.jisc.ac.uk/search?q=author%3A%20fish%2C%20sheila&rn=1
Heilbronn, Ruth.
Teacher Education and Training : The development of practical judgement through 'practiceship'.
Passed 31-07-2007, Not yet received
UCL
https://discover.libraryhub.jisc.ac.uk/search?q=author%3A%20heilbronn%2C%20ruth&rn=5
Kirmse, Stefan Bastian.
Youth in Post-Soviet Central Asia : Exploring Transition, Globalization and Youth Culture in the Ferghana Valley.
Passed 30-11-2009, Not yet received
SOAS
https://discover.libraryhub.jisc.ac.uk/search?author=Kirmse%2C%20Stefan%20Bastian&rn=1
One other point to note is that since the college copies of theses did not come to Senate House Library and only now reside with the colleges themselves, different colleges hold and record their thesis outputs in different ways – and not everything will be available by searching on the catalogue that I sent you.
One example that I can give you of this is below:
Parker, Matthew Daniel.
Identification and functional characterisation of prostate cancer biomarkers.
Passed 31-12-2009, Not yet received
Institute of Cancer Research
http://books.icr.ac.uk/HeritageScripts/Hapi.dll/retrieve2?SetID=0C756E56-17F8-4102-B711-B4968AB57070&SearchTerm0=Identification%20and%20functional%20characterisation&SearchPrecision=20&SortOrder=0&Offset=4&Direction=%2E&Dispfmt=F&Dispfmt_b=B01&Dispfmt_f=F03&DataSetName=LIVEDATA
This is a thesis from the Institute of Cancer Research but since the Institute does not have its catalogue listings on the Jisc site the only way of finding this one was to check their library catalogue directly.
I have not checked all of the theses that still show as “Passed … Not yet received” but this is the principle explanation for these records. Now that we are aware of these problem records we will endeavour to correct / remove them from our catalogue as we should no longer be holding college theses from this period and it is likely that in most of these cases either we never received them (i.e. they went directly to the relevant college) or we received them and sent them directly on to the college library for retention with no further action by ourselves.
I hope this reply answers your question. I do apologise for the length of my reply but I felt you should have as full an explanation as possible since although the historic changes to the awarding and retention of higher degrees across the University of London may be reasonably well known within the University itself it is not something that is very well known beyond.
If you do have any further questions then do please get in touch.
