---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 14:04:39 -0400
From: David Goodman <dgoodman@Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Re: Serials Cancellation Formulas (Stefanie DuBose)

As many of you know, Princeton decided to go ahead with the Academic Press
Ideal titles in electronic form only for 90% of the titles, and also for some
additional titles published by biological societies. The decision is based on
the commitment of AP to availability through appropriate outside organizations
if it ever becomes unavailable through the publisher. However, we are aware
that we are moving somewhat before the administrative structure is in place.
Personally, I think that journals should continue to produce a few copies at
least in paper, but their preservation be the responsibility of regional or
national libraries. I also now think that  long term preservation of archival
electronic format should also be the responsibility of regional or national
libraries, not publishers. (The National Library of Canada has such a policy,
I think.).

As this library have never in recent years received additional funds
specifically for electronic versions of material, the view was that we would
do better to provide the users with as wide a range of material as possible
for the available money.

The decision was supported by our success with databases. Quite a number of
our databases have been available only in electronic format for some
years--and I know that many other universities have done this also. (For
databases where the online version represents only a current snapshot, like
Ulrich's, we continue one print copy in order to maintain a chronological record.)

The decision has been further supported by our experience since then: we have
not had a single complaint. Very few users seem to have even noticed.   At
least in scientific fields, users apparently try the electronic version first,
and resort to paper only if electronic is not available.

("We" in all the above means the consensus of our selectors and the agreement
of our administration, but this interpretation is my personal one only. )

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:13:49 -0400
> From: "DuBose, Stefanie" <DUBOSES@MAIL.ECU.EDU>
> Subject: RE: Serials Cancellation Formulas (David Goodman)
>
>         Among the factors cited below, examples of type 1 include:
>         looking at the price per use
>         looking at JCR to see what people in the subject cite
>         seeing what journals faculty cite in their research papers
>         seeing what journals students cite in the honors theses/papers/etc.
>
> David makes a very good point here.  We are, fundamentally, stewards of
> institutional/state money, and must consider valid, and if possible,
> quantifiable measures that support our spending choices.
>
> Part of our evaluation method includes JCR impact factors, in house use,
> electronic use and faculty/student citation analyses.  Cost is a factor, of
> course, but if an institution owns an expensive title that has substantial
> use, high citation rates and substantial ILL use, the use justifies the
> cost.  Part of what an institution can do is eliminate format
> duplication--look at what your titles are and how many formats they are
> in--cancel the microfilm, perhaps, or the paper subscription if available
> online (with decent archiving)--quick and dirty methods, I must say, if
> you're up against a deadline.  Of course, much depends on the library's
> administration, too.  Some administrators may want to push for electronic
> only despite the issues that surround archiving; that's a tough call to make
> as we try to balance administrative factors with concern for the future.
>
> Another idea I've had is looking at departmental budgets using the MAP
> formula and factoring that adjustment in.  For example, a department may
> have $125,000 in journal titles, yet have only 12 faculty members and a
> small graduate program.  That must have an impact on cancellations, but in
> terms of a formula, I'm not sure how, except to assign a weight to each
> factor.
>
> The other concern that arises for me is archiving, which has been discussed
> often in this forum.  My question is what constitutes "OK" archiving
> procedures?  Last year our math faculty members were in favor of electronic
> only, and now they are sharing my concern with the archiving issue.  I
> think, in my case, that I have a problem with the access vs. ownership
> issue--we've paid for the information, therefore we should always have
> access to it, despite potential technological obsolescence.  Maybe it's just
> me...
>
> Regards,
>
> Stefanie DuBose
> Assistant Collection Development Librarian
> Joyner Library
> East Carolina University
> (p)252-328-2598 (f)252-328-4834
> duboses@mail.ecu.edu <mailto:duboses@mail.ecu.edu>