Email list hosting service & mailing list manager


Re: Print vs Online - ECO (Electronic Collections Online) Peter Picerno 16 Jul 2002 14:25 UTC

This does, indeed, sound like a great solution. The only limitation would be
that of which publishers (including society publishers) choose to buy into
ECO and which publishers choose not to buy into ECO. If a certain publisher
opts not to participate, or opts out of ECO after a few years, then the
viability of ECO is in question. Since I'm talking completely out of my hat
at this point, it would seem that in order to lure some publishers/titles
into ECO, they might be forced into making the same concessions which other
aggregators and publishers have made, i.e., embargoed titles, 'exclusive'
limitation deals, etc. The things which remain most attractive, though, are
(1) the stability of access to the back issues and (2) the ability to
subscribe to individual titles rather than to bundled packages (perhaps two
reasons why many publishers would decline to participate!!).
More information about ECO would be welcome!

Peter Picerno

Dr. Peter V. Picerno
Acquisitions and Serials Librarian
Nova Southeastern University Libraries
3301 College Avenue
Fort Lauderdale   FL   33314
(954) 262-4662
FAX (954) 262-3946

-----Original Message-----
From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum
[mailto:SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU]On Behalf Of Mark Ferguson
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 9:08 AM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: Print vs Online - ECO (Electronic Collections Online)

One solution proposed for the stability (or lack there of) of electronic
journals is OCLC's product ECO (Electronic Collections Online).  In this
instance, from what I understand, one subscribes to ejournals much like one
does in print, individually and at the same cost as print.   OCLC
guarentee's access to all backfiles built up through subscription in
perpetuity.
This seems like the best solution proposed so far of combining the stability
of print and the accessability of electronic formats.  We are considering
ECO seriously as a replacement for  the print journals at our library. Does
anyone have any experience with ECO?

-----Original Message-----
From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum
[mailto:SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU]On Behalf Of Peter Picerno
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 1:31 PM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: Print vs Online

One aspect of this discussion, it seems to me, which has been omitted or
ignored though it has been implied under the rubric of 'stability of
e-formats' is the long-term access to backfiles. With the recent and
increasing volatility of publishers as business entities, there doesn't seem
to be a long-term or proven guarantee that a title is going to remain the
property of a particular publisher, or that a particular publisher will
remain the entity which it presently is. In the face of such changes, it is
entirely posible for archiving and access agreements to change radically as
titles or publishing entities change: thus one cannot say with 100% surety
that access will be a given. Add to this the recent instance of a society
publisher to decide that access to backfiles past a certain date may be had
at an added fee (is this an instance of a value-subtracted product??) even
though an institution may have paid for the access as part of its long-term
subscription. In real-life terms, this last instance translates into a
further stretch of serials dollars and if other publishers follow suit,
libraries will be obligated to pay for current subscriptions as well as
access to past subscription-based material which would actually represent
double payment. This latter phenomenon does not exist in the case of print
subscriptions.
Rather than take the preceeding statement as a preference for print over
electronic, read it as an indication that the entirety of electronic journal
publication is still too new and too experimental for definitive decisions
to be made. What is needed is an e-publishing model which works for the
business community as well as for the library (and research) community, and
I don't know that we yet have one. Remember, too, that print took a couple
thousand years to evolve to its present state, so maybe we can translate
that evolutionary time into a couple of decades for our present fast-paced
world and e-publishing.
In addition to working towards better online versions, as was pointed out,
we also need to lobby for better hardware solutions such as screen
resolution and e-fonts which will make it easier to actually read things
online.

Peter V. Picerno

Dr. Peter V. Picerno
Acquisitions and Serials Librarian
Nova Southeastern University Libraries
3301 College Avenue
Fort Lauderdale   FL   33314
(954) 262-4662
FAX (954) 262-3946

-----Original Message-----
From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum
[mailto:SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU]On Behalf Of Rick Anderson
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 11:37 AM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: Print vs Online

Albert's note below presents a number of very good arguments for being
careful in deciding how to spend your money on online resources, a position
with which I completely agree.  However, it offers no support at all for the
idea that print is a superior delivery mechanism.  He very correctly points
out a number of problems with the current versions of some online products,
but the long-term solution is not to stick with print -- the solution is to
insist on better online versions.  (In some cases, of course, sticking with
print is the appropriate short-term solution.)

-------------
Rick Anderson
Director of Resource Acquisition
The University Libraries
University of Nevada, Reno      "I'm not against the modern
1664 No. Virginia St.            world.  I just don't think
Reno, NV  89557                  everything's for sale."
PH  (775) 784-6500 x273             -- Elvis Costello
FX  (775) 784-1328
rickand@unr.edu

>         Electronic technology applied to reference works,
>         such as Books in Print, and information services
>         has worked very well for a long time. Even before
>         'online' developed, Engineering Index, and the
>         like were supplying tapes to subscribers. These
>         information services were the first electronic
>         publishers.
>
>         The difficulty with online editions of journals
>         and newspapers is the omission of items found in
>         the printed editions. Many magazines and newspapers
>         have dropped freelancers' articles from full-text
>         databases (rather than pay them). Many sources,
>         such as PubMed, omit material published more
>         than a few years or decades ago. The 'full-text'
>         edition of British Medical Journal available
>         through Infotrac also comes up short. For example,
>         two letters published in the Feb 26 1994 issue
>         responding to a Jan 29, 1994 editorial titled
>         "The Scandal of Poor Medical Research" [308
>         p 283]do not show up, even as citations.
>
>         Such omissions must mislead readers to believe
>         that contributions (that may be important) do not
>         exist. It less than a year ago that a Johns
>         Hopkins research volunteer died because the
>         research was prepared with a sloppy review
>         of the literature.
>
>         My point is that by promoting online formats
>         that are incomplete, publishers and libraries
>         contribute to "the scandal" of poor research,
>         described by the BMJ editorial cited above. An
>         ethical solution would require a detailed
>         description of the deficits and possible side
>         effects online editions as alternatives to print.
>         Editors of a number of (medical) journals have
>         been calling on authors to discuss their
>         conclusions with reference to the entirety of
>         the published literature. Compliance with this
>         standard can only be accomplished by authors
>         who are fully supported by adequate resources.
>
> Albert Henderson
> Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000
> <70244.1532@compuserve.com>
>
> .
> .
> .
> .
>