[original post followed by responses.]
Subject: electronic vs. print
From: Victor Torres <vtorres_at_upracd.upr.clu.edu>
Since the current trend is that many journals will not provide the
electronic version of your print subscription thus forcing libraries
to choose one or the other, or pay an extra amount for both version, I
wonder if any academic library has established some criteria for this
decision or how are libraries sorting this dilemma.
Victor Federico Torres, Ph.D.
Oficial de Desarrollo de Colecciones/Collection
Development Officer
Sistema de Bibliotecas
Universidad de Puerto Rico-Rio Piedras
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00931
tel. (787)764-0000, ext. 7920
fax (787)763-5685
vtorres_at_upracd.upr.clu.edu
==#1==
From: "Kevil, L H." <KevilL_at_missouri.edu>
We are working on a policy that in essence prefers the electronic over
the print edition, as the former brings many benefits. The primary
ones are a lower price, almost unlimited accessibility, and no need to
check in and bind print issues. There are certain exceptions, such as
when print is less expensive or when browser graphics of molecules are
less clear than the printed page. These exceptions are becoming uncommon.
L. Hunter KEVIL, Ph.D.
Collection Development Librarian
University of Missouri-Columbia
Columbia, Missouri 65201
KevilL_at_missouri.edu
573-884-8760
==#2==
From: Sandy Campbell <sandy.campbell_at_ualberta.ca>
University of Alberta has worked on this for a while. Our criteria
are published in the following reference:
Campbell, Sandy. "Print to electronic journal conversion: criteria
for maintaining duplicate print journals", Feliciter, v. 49, no. 6,
2003, p. 295-297.
Cheers
Sandy Campbell
Collections Manager
Science and Technology Library
University of Alberta
Edmonton, AB Canada
T6G 2J8
(780) 492-7915
(780) 492-2721 (FAX)
sandy.campbell_at_ualberta.ca
[note:
Feliciter.
Canadian Library Association.
1956-
English Serial Publication : Periodical : Monthly v. ill. 22-28 cm.
Ottawa, Canadian Library Association. ]
==#3==
From: "Pakala, Jim" <Jim.Pakala_at_covenantseminary.edu>
Many factors can come into play.
1) The electronic version of some journals is always a year or
more behind, so that paper format also is needed if scholars or other
patrons don't want to wait so long to see recent issues. (This usually
is a formalized procedure, not just something that happens and surprises
you.)
2) In some cases, the paper format is essential to guarantee
longevity. Publishers may be taken over, go bankrupt, change policies,
or otherwise be too unpredictable to guarantee permanent access to all
electronic issues the library paid for over the years.
3) Interlibrary Loan must be considered. Can the electronic
version be shared as freely and easily, both legally and
technologically, with all types of libraries? For comparison, are the
best and most cost-effective means of worldwide transmission being
used for paper copies (e.g., ARIEL)? Ditto for electronic sharing.
4) What other legal and/or technical and/or staff & patron
training issues need consideration? Some examples may include: Number
of simultaneous users? Gatekeeping issues? Will a major looming system
migration have unforeseen impact? How fast and well can patrons access
and search the electronic periodicals? Is their presentation
user-friendly, unified and seamless? If a paper copy is routed, how
will this occur and faculty or staff feedback be elicited with the new
electronic copy?
Jim Pakala <mailto:jim.pakala_at_covenantseminary.edu>
Library Director Phone: 314-434-4044 ext.4101; Fax:
314-434-4819
Covenant Theological Seminary
12330 Conway Road; St. Louis, MO 63141-8697
==#4==
From: John Abbott <abbottjp@ appstate.edu
We are converting to electronic-only across the board as money, time,
labor, and availability allow. Electronic resources can be a Tower
of Babel of too much information with no unifying conceptual model
that is perceivable to the faculty and students. The resources must
be hot-linked out of the opac and, most importantly, from the
article-level in the electronic indexes/abstracts.
Buying a battery of publishers' e-journal content w/o a means
to link it from the patron's point-of-discovery (the index/abstract)
is counterproductive.
The individual publisher search engines (for their own content, e.g.,
ScienceDirect et al.) are a wicked distraction. These mislead patrons
into the thinking they are doing an expansive search on their
topic when they are only searching w/in one publisher's domain.
As improved linking evolves, I would like to suppress those
publishing house search options to that finite content.
Federated or meta-search engines will relieve this as time goes
on if these can be targeted to a discipline. I see a
scholar.lifescience.google.com, scholar.education.google.com, or
similar. Elsevier is rolling out something called Scopus. Librarians
love the exacting features of searching by fields, etc. as offered
in dbs like BIOSIS. 98% of patrons could care less. The future
of deeply-analyzed indexes/abstracts is in doubt.
Truth be told, as content pursuit has been disintermediated by giving
patrons direct access to electronic indexing and article sources, the
effect has been a drop in patron research precision. The librarian as
finish-carpenter has been replaced with the faculty member in their
office wielding a digital jackhammer on the contents of the 24/7
all-you-can-eat library.
Received on Thu Jan 27 2005 - 03:02:28 EST