Re: Print vs Online Rick Anderson 08 Jul 2002 15:36 UTC
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> > > . > . > . > . >