(Please excuse duplicate postings) Hello, Below are the responses I received for the question I posted a few days ago on electronic and print journal quality comparison. I have included the question first and then the responses. Thanks to all those who responded. Cindy Cynthia L. Koman Serials Librarian Schaffer Library of Health Sciences Albany Medical College Albany, NY 12208 komanc@mail.amc.edu ______ Question: We are doing a journal collection analysis and are wondering if other institutions have done a journal PDF quality comparison analysis - comparing the electronic title with the print counterpart and the quality of images (p and e) from the journal you are looking to discard. Specifically, have you done this comparison with any electronic backfiles your institution may have purchased? Have you done a usage comparison? Any information you can share will be appreciated. _______ Responses: We did an informal comparison (nothing scientific) when debating which duplicate JSTOR titles to discard. In general, we found the e quality to be just as good as print. However, our Math faculty had issues with a couple of titles containing high quality images to which JSTOR had a separate link to the image. The faculty didn't like the extra step so we kept those titles in print. _____ I recently participated in a project at the Univ. of Kansas Libraries where we did a page-by-page comparison of a paper version of a recent issue with an e-version from an aggregator. We looked at 39 titles spread across the art, architecture, design & urban planning fields. Not too surprising, the journals which are primarily text compared well. The journals that were heavily illustrated were another story and in the end we recommended retaining paper subscriptions to 21 titles and cancelling 18. In some cases color images in the original version were scanned in black & white; in some cases the image scans were so poorly done, that all details were lost; in some cases we were concerned that all the advertising was omitted--an important component since the ads frequently have images of art that is otherwise unavailable and these ads are indexed by Art Index. We even found cases where secondary material like books reviews or art exhibition reviews or lists of vendors were totally omitted in the e-version. Because our paper journals in the Art & Architecture Library do not circulate, we could not use circulation figures. I did however ask faculty for their input and --considering it was the first week after finals--did hear from several who provided useful information about how they and their students used the journals. In some cases they asked for retention because they found browsing the magazines an important way to discover new artists and materials. In other cases, when I had found the image quality of the e-version unacceptable, I was advised that based on the cost of the paper version, the faculty was willing to rely on the e-version and look for better images in other digital resources. As you may note, my project was a comparison with aggregators such as Wilson OmniFile: Full Text Select, Academic Search Premier, Proquest Research Library and not with backfiles purchased from publishers. We do have all the J-STOR products and I find those compare well with our holdings but that obviously doesn't allow cancellation of current subscriptions. Based on my experience, the only way to really determine whether the e-version is an acceptable format for art, architecture & design journals, is to do a page-by- page comparison, and then hope that the aggregator doesn't make any radical downgrades after you cancel the paper version! _____ doi:10.1016/j.lcats.2006.12.002 http://www.info.sciencedirect.com/content/journals/backfiles/backfiles_white_paper.pdf http://www.info.sciencedirect.com/content/journals/backfiles/Reports/index.asp should help you. _____ The Univ of Arizona has systematically withdrawn print when we get perpetual access to the electronic version. As part of that process we systematically checked the electronic versions. We found publishers very willing to work with us when there were missing elements or poor quality images. Below is a citation to an article written by my colleagues Marianne Stowell Bracke and Jim Martin describing this effort. LISA: Library and Information Science Abstracts Title: Developing criteria for the withdrawal of print content available online Author: Bracke, Marianne Stowell < http://www-mi1.csa.com/ids70/p_search_form.php?field=au&query=bracke+ma rianne+stowell&log=literal&SID=9v4c5f5tmrip6jmpftmojcilk0> ; Martin, Jim < http://www-mi1.csa.com/ids70/p_search_form.php?field=au&query=martin+ji m&log=literal&SID=9v4c5f5tmrip6jmpftmojcilk0> Source: Collection Building; 24 (2) 2005, pp.61-64 ISSN: 0160-4953 Abstract: Purpose: Limited physical and financial resources and changing customer behaviors compelled the University of Arizona Science-Engineering Library to pursue more flexible collection management options, such as removing print copies of journals as the library purchased the electronic backfiles. The purpose of this paper is to describe a process used at the library to compare electronic journals to their print counterparts. Design/methodology/approach: The library's approach was to study the electronic content provided through Elsevier's ScienceDirect for completeness and quality of text and images. This was to ensure that the removal of print would minimally impact library customers while reclaiming building space that could be better utilized to meet changing customer needs. Findings: The process uncovered the reality that the electronic backfiles were not always adequate substitutes for print copies. In response, it was necessary to open a dialogue with the publisher to share the library's findings that resulted in improved electronic backfiles. Originality/value: This paper weighs the advantages and disadvantages of taking a transformational approach to collection management. (Original abstract) _____ ----------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments may contain confidential information that is protected by law and is for the sole use of the individuals or entities to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this email and destroying all copies of the communication and attachments. Further use, disclosure, copying, distribution of, or reliance upon the contents of this email and attachments is strictly prohibited. To contact Albany Medical Center, or for a copy of our privacy practices, please visit us on the Internet at www.amc.edu.
