Re: Cancellation of print journals (David Goodman) Marcia Tuttle 13 Apr 2000 22:38 UTC
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 18:37:43 -0400 From: David Goodman <dgoodman@Princeton.EDU> Subject: Re: Cancellation of print journals At the Princeton Biology Library for the 2000 subscription year, we have begun to receive some major titles as electronic only. We are doing this in appropriate cases where we have confidence in the stability and performance of the publisher, where the financial advantage is significant, and where the browsing use is insignificant. Of the 27 Biology Library titles (from Academic Press, American Physiological Society, and Rockefeller University Press) available in this way and that met our criteria, for only one of them did we continue the print as well. At Princeton this is not unique to the Biology Library. Many other branches of our system receive some of these titles from Academic Press in electronic format only. When we joined IDEAL, only 9 of the 112 potential Academic Press titles system-wide were continued in print as well. There are many other titles I (and probably at least some other selectors) would treat similarly if they were available on suitable terms as electronic format only. The most fundamental reason why few research institutions are actually discontinuing print is the concern of research libraries for permanent access. By this is meant both the provision of access to the years purchased if the subscription is later discontinued, and the certainty of access into the indefinite future. I am aware that our library is making the decision to rely upon the electronic format before all of these issues have been totally resolved. All of the publishers for which we have switched to electronic*only offer what I consider adequate stability and permanence, but the institutional arrangements for this are not complete, let alone tested. Another factor is the acceptability of the electronic journals format to the most influential. I have not asked for formal approval, although I was prudent enough to check with key representative people. The reactions from those previously opposed to the idea were variations of "I suppose it's inevitable--go ahead. Some librarians from other branches here did obtain formal approval from at least some groups. I rely on the users' adaptability, eagerness to experiment with new technology, and understanding of the benefits of electronic journals, also on our willingness to reinstate print for any titles found to be really needed in that format. I also know that our users value very highly our willingness to subscribe to titles in new areas of interest, to continue to receive a large number of books, and to pay for all necessary document delivery. We think that they would rather we spent our funds on these than on the unnecessary and irrational duplication of formats. As a transition, I have asked to receive tables of contents by email of the titles we no longer receive; I print these and put them where I formerly kept the unbound issues. In the few months since this policy has been effective, I have not received complaints, but have received many appreciations of the electronic versions. I am, of course, expressing only my own personal views on what's happening. -- David Goodman Biology Librarian, and Co-Chair, Electronic Journals Task Force Princeton University Library dgoodman@princeton.edu http://www.princeton.edu/~biolib/ phone: 609-258-3235 fax: 609-258-2627