While we are not cancelling print because it is in an aggregator,  we are
looking at use statistics in aggregator as an indication of probably use of
print.

So if use in aggregator is low and the aggregator does cover adequately the
content of the journal -- we may cancel the print.  If use in low but there
is special content not in aggregator that patron would need (e.g job
ads)  we would keep.

Since we cannot depend on aggregator content being there, we are selecting
titles where  we would be willing could depend on ILL in the future.

Has anyone else taken this approach?

Diane

At 09:34 AM 7/18/2008, you wrote:
> > As has already been said, I think it's very risky to cancel
> > print in lieu of a title being available in an aggregated
> > database.
>
>Chad's absolutely right, of course.  The problem is that sometimes we
>have no choice but to take risks that we would otherwise prefer to
>avoid.
>
>But it's also important that we think about risk in two dimensions:
>likelihood and impact.  The impact of suddenly losing access to journal
>A may be very slight, while for journal B it may be very great.
>(Obviously, that's why research libraries tend to be happy having
>aggregator access to Redbook, but try to maintain a direct subscription
>to Science.)  Going aggregator-only for a given title greatly increases
>the likelihood that access will be lost, but that's not the big
>question: the big question is what the impact of that loss would be.
>
>One salutary effect of a tight budget is that it pushes you to really
>examine the impact risk for your journal collection.  The lower the
>impact risk, the more "likelihood" risk you can afford to take.  And the
>more low-impact journals you can push to an aggregator, the more
>high-impact journals you can afford to buy directly.
>
>---
>Rick Anderson
>Assoc. Dir. for Scholarly Resources & Collections
>Marriott Library
>University of Utah
>rick.anderson@utah.edu
>801-721-1687
>
>