> Most online databases aren't archival and that is the main
> problem and danger when deciding to pitch the print for online.
> Databases are forever dropping and adding titles.

This is a very good point.  Of course, it has mainly to do with the
limitations we're facing at this point in the migration of journals from
print to online; it doesn't really address the question of which format is
better.  And we also need to bear in mind that archival permanence is not an
absolute necessity for every journal in every institution.  Wide
distribution to many simultaneous users scattered throughout the campus (and
elsewhere), on the other hand, is.

Now, that said:

> Our library is
> de-selecting only those journals that are found in JSTOR, since
> they are the only database that is archival and tries to cover
> from volume one of all their holding.  It would be nice if all
> databases would promise the same as JSTOR.  Please let me know if
> there are others that are reliable.

At my institution our approach is similar to yours, though we will also
cancel print if our online access comes directly from the publisher.  Thus,
we will cancel print in favor of online for Elsevier, Wiley and Springer
journals, but not for those journals and magazines that we currently only
get via ProQuest or EBSCO packages.  But our desire is to offer as much
content online as we can.  Our philosophy can be pretty much summed up this
way: All things being equal, online journals are always better than print.
But all things are never equal, so we proceed with care and weigh the pros
and cons of every print/online decision.

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