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> > > . > . > . > . >
