(Please excuse duplicate postings)

Hello,

Below are the responses I received for the question I posted a few days
ago on electronic and print journal quality comparison. I have included
the question first and then the responses.

Thanks to all those who responded.

Cindy

Cynthia L. Koman
Serials Librarian
Schaffer Library of Health Sciences
Albany Medical College
Albany, NY 12208
komanc@mail.amc.edu
______

Question:
We are doing a journal collection analysis and are wondering if other
institutions have done a journal PDF quality comparison analysis -
comparing the electronic title with the print counterpart and the
quality of images (p and e) from the journal you are looking to discard.
Specifically, have you done this comparison with any electronic
backfiles your institution may have purchased? Have you done a usage
comparison?

Any information you can share will be appreciated.
_______

Responses:
We did an informal comparison (nothing scientific) when debating which
duplicate JSTOR titles to discard. In general, we found the e quality to
be just as good as print. However, our Math faculty had issues with a
couple of titles containing high quality images to which JSTOR had a
separate link to the image. The faculty didn't like the extra step so we
kept those titles in print.

_____

I recently participated in a project at the Univ. of Kansas Libraries
where we did a page-by-page comparison of a paper version of a recent
issue with an e-version from an aggregator. We looked at 39 titles
spread across the art, architecture, design & urban planning fields. Not
too surprising, the journals which are primarily text compared well. The
journals that were heavily illustrated were another story and in the end
we recommended retaining paper subscriptions to 21 titles and cancelling
18. In some cases color images in the original version were scanned in
black & white; in some cases the image scans were so poorly done, that
all details were lost; in some cases we were concerned that all the
advertising was omitted--an important component since the ads frequently
have images of art that is otherwise unavailable and these ads are
indexed by Art Index. We even found cases where secondary material like
books reviews or art exhibition reviews or lists of vendors were totally
omitted in the e-version. Because our paper journals in the Art &
Architecture Library do not circulate, we could not use circulation
figures. I did however ask faculty for their input and --considering it
was the first week after finals--did hear from several who provided
useful information about how they and their students used the journals.
In some cases they asked for retention because they found browsing the
magazines an important way to discover new artists and materials. In
other cases, when I had found the image quality of the e-version
unacceptable, I was advised that based on the cost of the paper version,
the faculty was willing to rely on the e-version and look for better
images in other digital resources. As you may note, my project was a
comparison with aggregators such as Wilson OmniFile: Full Text Select,
Academic Search Premier, Proquest Research Library and not with
backfiles purchased from publishers. We do have all the J-STOR products
and I find those compare well with our holdings but that obviously
doesn't allow cancellation of current subscriptions. Based on my
experience, the only way to really determine whether the e-version is an
acceptable format for art, architecture & design journals, is to do a
page-by- page comparison, and then hope that the aggregator doesn't make
any radical downgrades after you cancel the paper version!

_____

doi:10.1016/j.lcats.2006.12.002

http://www.info.sciencedirect.com/content/journals/backfiles/backfiles_white_paper.pdf

http://www.info.sciencedirect.com/content/journals/backfiles/Reports/index.asp

should help you.
_____

The Univ of Arizona has systematically withdrawn print when we get
perpetual access to the electronic version. As part of that process we
systematically checked the electronic versions. We found publishers very
willing to work with us when there were missing elements or poor quality
images. Below is a citation to an article written by my colleagues
Marianne Stowell Bracke and Jim Martin describing this effort.

LISA: Library and Information Science Abstracts
Title: Developing criteria for the withdrawal of print content
available online
Author: Bracke, Marianne Stowell
<
http://www-mi1.csa.com/ids70/p_search_form.php?field=au&query=bracke+ma

rianne+stowell&log=literal&SID=9v4c5f5tmrip6jmpftmojcilk0> ; Martin,
Jim
<
http://www-mi1.csa.com/ids70/p_search_form.php?field=au&query=martin+ji

m&log=literal&SID=9v4c5f5tmrip6jmpftmojcilk0>
Source: Collection Building; 24 (2) 2005, pp.61-64
ISSN: 0160-4953
Abstract: Purpose: Limited physical and financial resources and
changing customer behaviors compelled the University of Arizona
Science-Engineering Library to pursue more flexible collection
management options, such as removing print copies of journals as the
library purchased the electronic backfiles. The purpose of this paper is
to describe a process used at the library to compare electronic journals
to their print counterparts. Design/methodology/approach: The library's
approach was to study the electronic content provided through Elsevier's
ScienceDirect for completeness and quality of text and images. This was
to ensure that the removal of print would minimally impact library
customers while reclaiming building space that could be better utilized
to meet changing customer needs. Findings: The process uncovered the
reality that the electronic backfiles were not always adequate
substitutes for print copies. In response, it was necessary to open a
dialogue with the publisher to share the library's findings that
resulted in improved electronic backfiles. Originality/value: This paper
weighs the advantages and disadvantages of taking a transformational
approach to collection management. (Original abstract)

_____

-----------------------------------------
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments may contain
confidential information that is protected by law and is for the
sole use of the individuals or entities to which it is addressed.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by
replying to this email and destroying all copies of the
communication and attachments. Further use, disclosure, copying,
distribution of, or reliance upon the contents of this email and
attachments is strictly prohibited. To contact Albany Medical
Center, or for a copy of our privacy practices, please visit us on
the Internet at www.amc.edu.