Yes. My idea is that we have to evaluate the important titles--we shouldn't cancel print because it is in an aggregator, *unless* it's a marginal title anyway (for me, based more on collaborating with faculty to know which titles they want and also on recommending sources (Katz/La Guardia mostly), and less on usage.) As I look at titles we have in print, first I want the most important journals in the field to be available, electronically in a stable platform if possible. If we can't afford the electronic, then in print (think _Science_, as Rick mentions in discussing the key value of impact.) I also use many of the criteria that have been mentioned when evaluating title formats. I look at, for instance, graphics (for Math), illustrations (for Art), inclusion of content where that's important, online availability, and whether it's a browsing title, etc. I also check to see what other institutions have a title available for ILL possibilities, but also try to keep in mind that without some kind of collective collection development agreement with those institutions, that access could be lost also. Additionally, I think that if it's important to have a title but aggregator coverage is adequate (this would be a title somewhere between crucial and marginal), we somehow need to find a way to track that those titles are still available in the aggregated database, so we can look for alternative access if necessary. This gets into the thorny issue of checking the online access for some titles in nearly the same way as we "check-in" for print, and I don't think there's a really effective way to do this yet. It would also be good to periodically make sure all electronic titles that we pay for are available, not just the aggregator titles, but realistically at this time, I think most of us rely on patrons to let us know when access has lapsed, unless there are auditor or other issues. Also, I think that if I collaborate with faculty to keep a title they want available, I need to continue to work with them to encourage them to suggest or require their students to actually use it, and I offer to show them how to use email alerts or talk about RSS feeds to increase visibility of the current issues. I find that many faculty are looking for ways to be able to show their students how to keep up with the literature in the field in the absence of a print issue arriving every month. This could affect usage stats, too. The faculty members know the important titles, but they aren't always aware of the new ways of finding out, for instance, when a new issue comes out (beyond their own membership copies.) So this approach requires a lot of collaboration with disciplinary faculty as well as other librarians who do library instruction, but I guess it's all part of the new paradigm as we learn how best to approach the changes in scholarly communication. Thanks for a great discussion. Sue Diane Paldan wrote: > 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 >> >> -- Sue Wiegand Periodicals Librarian 123 Cushwa-Leighton Library Saint Mary’s College Notre Dame, IN 46556 574 284-4789 swiegand@saintmarys.edu <mailto:swiegand@saintmarys.edu>
