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>
>
> .
> .
> .
> .
>