----------(1)
>From ppicerno@choctaw.astate.edu Fri Oct 20 16:37:26 2000
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 13:11:02 -0500
From: Peter Picerno <ppicerno@choctaw.astate.edu>
Subject: Re: Cost per title of print journals versus journals in
electronic da tabases... (Jennifer Sweeney)
Jennifer brings up some interesting points and I guess this whole thread
points to the need for some consideration and responsible reasarch in this
area. For example, in what ways are e-journals not replacements for print,
and vice-versa? Besides such obvious things as archiving (be it electronic
or print), maleability of text (more easily achieved in electronic -- i.e.,
one could conceivably download a text for a quote directly into a research
paper), access (a no-brainer, or is it, really??) what are some of the
unique properties of each format and their attendant environments which need
to be considered before we either plunge ahead into aggregated journal
bundles or dig our heels into sticking with individual print subscriptions??
Peter Picerno
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 09:46:36 -0700
From: Jennifer Sweeney <jksweeney@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Cost per title of print journals versus journals in
electronic da tabases... (Peter Picerno)
I get in trouble regularly for oversimplifying things so I can relate to
Buddy's questions. A couple of thoughts to add to Peter's:
Maintaining a print collection and providing access to an electronic
resource are not equivalent in terms of cost or content, and never will
be. Comparing them this way does not provide an accurate picture of the
effects on our users... Electronic features such as linking via CrossRef,
multimedia, and so on have made e-journals invaluable to researchers, and
so we should provide them. All this aside, it's still a fact that neither
e-journals nor full-text databases are a true replacement for print, no
matter how much we want them to be. It's a difficult tradeoff; what will
best serve your users' needs given a budget of x?
Jennifer Sweeney
Library Analyst
Shields Library
University of California
Davis, CA 95616
voice (530) 752-5819
fax (530) 752-6899
jksweeney@ucdavis.edu
----------(2)
>From radencic@FIU.EDU Fri Oct 20 16:37:26 2000
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:11:55 -0400
From: John Radencich <radencic@FIU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Cost per title of print journals versus journals inelectronic
da tabases... (Peter Picerno)
I don't know what aggregators you've been looking at, but we have some
that have some "rarefied" journals indeed. For example, Kluwer Online,
has such journals as: "Applied categorical structures," "Journal of
atmospheric chemistry," "Oxidation of metals," and on and on. Same goes
for Elsevier Science Direct, Project Muse, and every other one I've seen.
John Radencich
Library-Cataloging Dept.
Florida International University
Miami, Florida 33199
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:12:54 -0500
> From: Peter Picerno <ppicerno@choctaw.astate.edu>
> Subject: Re: Cost per title of print journals versus journals in
> electronic da tabases... (Buddy Pennington)
>
> Good point, Buddy, but there are a few things you need to consider, such as
> the more 'rarefied' titles (for lack of a better word - perhaps
> 'specialized' would be better) which are part of every subject area ...
> where there is any sort of research going on in an institution there will be
> demand for titles which are not usually part of the bundled packages which
> aggregators offer, and to acquire such titles in a more cost-effective
> fashion sometimes means rather pricy solutions (we've just gone with Ovid
> for some medical journals). What you state may be true for general
> collections of core-type journals, but I would imagine that if most of us
> were to do a title-by-title comparison between our single-subscription
> titles and those in the bundles, we would not find a great amount of overlap
> (all other problems like archiving, etc. aside). Nonetheless, it would be an
> interesting comparison to make.
>
> Peter Picerno
>
