I figured I'd be shaking a hornet's nest with my comments earlier!  I'm
grateful for the follow-up comments, and here are some responses:

>From Virginia Taffurelli:

> Be very cautious about cancelling print in lieu of online access.  Many
> publishers impose an embargo period for making issues available
> electronically.  Not all journals are imaged.  Some are not completely
> full-text.  Sometimes researches need to see the juxtaposition of articles
> with advertisements or other articles.  Some backfiles are incomplete.

This is all very true, and these are important caveats.  It's also
important, though, that when you make your format decisions you be careful
to weigh the pros and cons of _both_ formats.  The question is not "Does the
online version give me everything the print version does?"  Rather, the
question is "Which version of the content will serve my patrons best?"  Your
answer will vary depending on your patrons and the resource in question.
But I suggest that it is very possible to serve patrons better with an
incomplete online resource than with a complete print resource.  As I said
in my original message, it depends on what you're trying to do and whom
you're doing it for.

> The ideal scenario is to maintain both formats, if your library can afford
> the cost and the space for storing the print or microfilm replacememt.

Not to mention the staff required to manage both a print and an online
collection.  That is not an inconsequential expense.

>From Thomas McCaffrey:

>         "a lousy way to disseminate information"? indeed!!  Give me the
> printed word anytime.  There is so much unreliable about online, so much
> garbage out there!

Well, yes... but that's hardly uniquely true of the online environment.
(May I refer you to an Edwin Mellen Press catalog?)  But bear in mind that
we're not talking about replacing authoritative print publications with a
Google search.  We're talking about changing formats.  Or do you believe
that Books in Print online is less reliable than the print edition?

> Scholars have been pouring over books for thousands of years, and
> hopefully,
> will continue to do so for eternity.  The internet would be
> nowhere were it
> not for the collected wisdom of the ages available in books.  Every day,
> millions of children are turned on to the joys and advantages of reading
> BOOKS--not computer screens, which are flipped like so many TV
> channels and
> deleted or lost forever.

I agree entirely.  I'm in the middle of several books myself, and never plan
to quit reading books.  I read books to my children every night.  I don't
think anyone loves books more than I do.  But there's a very large
difference between reading and doing research.  If you're looking for
discrete pieces of information -- a composer's death date, a journal
citation, an attribution for a quote, a set of journal articles relevant to
a particular topic -- there is simply no comparison between online and print
resources.  Online wins hands down.  And if you're trying to _distribute_
research articles, the same is true.  Why on earth would we stick with a
model that makes scholars wait for weeks at a time (often months) to receive
a bundle of ten or twelve articles, most of which will be irrelevant to
their interests and all of which the scholar will have to make a trip across
campus to read (assuming that someone else doesn't get to the issue first)
when we have the option of distributing the articles individually, as
they're ready for publication, to multiple readers simultaneously, according
to preset criteria that minimize irrelevant citations?  There is simply no
rational way to defend print as a distribution method.  It does not work.
It's a pleasurable reading method, yes, but an extremely wasteful and
ineffective distribution method.

> Eventually, soon, this "information age" will be
> supplanted by some
> other form of progress, something which will sweep civilization into the
> next "gotta-have-it" mania

And when that happens it will behoove librarians to evaluate the new
technology, compare it to what has gone before, adopt it to the degree that
it makes sense to do so, and be willing to let go of whatever has been
obviated by it.  Again, the critical question is "How can we serve our
patrons best?".  It is not "How can we preserve tradition?" or "How can we
get our patrons to use the resources we like best?".

-------------
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