- Email: [email protected]
Doubly Bold — Replacing Print Journals with Electronic Versions
The Balance Point
Christa Easton, Column Editor
DOUBLY BOLD —REPLACING PRINT JOURNALS WITH
ELECTRONIC VERSIONS Christa Easton, Column Editor
Easton is Coordinator, Serials and Government Document Serials, Stanford University Libraries, Stanford, CA 94305-6004; e-mail: [email protected].
– THE BALANCE POINT –
Nicholson Baker’s Double Fold: Libraries and the Assault on Paper has raised public awareness of the issues of microfilm reformatting as a means of preservation.1 The purpose of this “Balance Point” column is not to review Baker’s work but rather to focus on the newest frontier for reformatting: replacing print serials with the electronic version. This trend is evident in the number of e-journals that are generally available. In 2001, Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory listings include 20,430 active online serials, now the predominant alternative to print; microforms comprise 13,580 entries. In 1988, there were 12,000 microforms and only 1,950 online periodicals.2 At a time when the issue of micro reformatting is receiving a burst of attention within the library profession, it is instructive to examine how librarians are approaching electronic reformatting. This article reviews the literature and a presentation regarding electronic reformatting. If there are libraries that replaced print materials with electronic without reflection, they are not likely to publicize that fact and therefore the cases available for study may be skewed. In reviewing these case studies, however, I was struck by the great care, thought, and investment of time library staff made as they considered replacing their print journals with electronic.
VOL. 27, NO. 3/4, 2001
97
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS Staff at the McDermott Library at the University of Texas at Dallas (UTD) began to consider replacing print journals with the electronic version as a response to space concerns. The library is housed in a building that is shared with other units, and a series of renovations squeezed the space available for journal stacks. Library staff were concerned about the quality of electronic versions and made a commitment to faculty that they would not discard any print journals until they verified that the electronic version was complete and of good quality. Carolyn Henebry and Ellen Safley checked print journals page by page against the online version.3 In general, they found many missing issues— particularly where a first issue was made available as a teaser and was subsequently followed by a gap before coverage became consistent. Other problems they found included missing pages, missing supplements, title changes that were not tracked clearly online, and missing color. On the other hand, by changing graphic settings some graphics could be viewed better online than in print. But Henebry and Safley also found a second layer of problems beyond those regarding the quality of electronic versions. They found it difficult to determine to whom problems should be reported, and that publishers or other providers were not necessarily responsive once informed. Although they identified some titles for which the online quality was good enough that they were comfortable in withdrawing the print, the number was low.
CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN UNIVERSITY Herzog4 reports on her comparison of the print versions of Gale Group’s Contemporary Authors (CA), Contemporary Authors New Revision Series (CANR), and Contemporary Literary Criticism (CLC) with the online Literature Resource Center (LRC). The library at California Lutheran University canceled the three print subscriptions when LRC became available. Given space pressures in the reference collection, Herzog later set out to determine if LRC was an adequate replacement for the three print sources both retrospectively and prospectively. Herzog began by posting a message about her situation to several discussion lists. On reading the responses, she discovered that “most of the respon-
98
SERIALS REVIEW
dents had either gone through the same process or were about to, due to dwindling budgets and lack of shelf space.”5 She also learned that “roughly 85% of the literary criticism articles from CLC are currently available via the LRC; the missing 15% reflect articles for which Gale was unable to obtain copyright clearance.”6 Herzog made word-by-word comparisons of the entries for three contemporary authors and obtained mixed results. Although the online versions did not include all of each print entry for biographical information, they did include information from a variety of other print sources, such as the Dictionary of Literary Biography, which her library did not hold in print. In some cases, the online version contained updated information that had changed since the print version was issued. For criticism sources, LRC did not include many reviews that had been included in the print CLC, although the percentage of included reviews rose as one moved closer to the present day. Advertising materials for LRC did state clearly that coverage prior to volume 95 was limited to 266 selected authors.7 Based on her research, Herzog recommended that her library reinstate its subscription to CLC. Although she did not recommend reinstatement of CA and CANR, she opted to keep the library’s existing sets in the library rather than in storage.
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT COLORADO SPRINGS (UCCS) In 1998 and 1999, library staff at UCCS undertook a journal cancellation project. Subject librarians proposed a preliminary list of titles for cancellation. Many of the titles were available to UCCS users as part of one or more full-text abstracting and indexing databases such as ABI/Inform or Expanded Academic ASAP. Library administrators recommended “full-text availability as a primary criteria for cancellation.”8 In response, subject librarians Sprague and Chambers proposed a study to examine the implications of relying on full-text databases to replace canceled titles. Their study focused on the seventy-nine refereed titles that were included in the proposed cancellation list and available via fulltext databases. Their choice of these titles was based on providing a manageable sample size and focusing on the titles most relevant to an academic library.
– CHRISTA EASTON –
The authors examined currency, coverage, graphics, and stability over a six-month period. They found that for 55 percent of titles, the latest available print issue was also available in one or more databases. Of the lagging titles, 36 percent were one issue behind, and 9 percent were two or more issues behind.9 They defined coverage as the extent to which major feature articles in the most recent issue were available but did not examine “supplementary articles or columns, such as editorials, publishers’ information and book reviews.”10 Given the furor within the library community over Nature Publishing Company’s initial decision to embargo many supplementary materials and columns, disregarding supplementtary materials will not be appropriate for all academic libraries.11 Within the definition above, the authors found that databases contained a range of 62 to 89 percent of articles in the print issue. They note that “the database with the best currency rating ranked lowest in completeness, and the database with the highest occurrence of major articles available was the one that scored lowest on currency.”12 Sprague and Chambers found that in many cases, graphics and tables that appeared in the print were not included in the database. Some tables appeared at the end of the article and in nontabular format. Over the six months of the study, two titles that had been identified for cancellation but were excluded from this study because they were not refereed were removed from UCCS’s full-text databases. Sprague and Chambers surveyed OCLC FirstSearch and Gale Group staff regarding their practices in compiling full-text databases. Neither “encouraged replacing print subscriptions with full-text representations in their abstracting and indexing services.”13 This recommendation may come from database producers’ desire not to cut into the print market share of the publishers with whom they contract. The authors emphasize that “these databases are not marketed as collection development options for libraries in the first place.”14 The most important message of their article is that libraries need to be educated consumers of full-text databases, particularly if they consider replacing print subscriptions with database content.
DREXEL UNIVERSITY The WW Hagerty Library at Drexel University moved quickly to replace its print subscriptions with an electronic journal collection. This transition was
– THE BALANCE POINT –
implemented as “the fastest, most cost-effective means of improving an inadequate journal collection and a way to make the collection more accessible” (p. 4).15 Drexel’s model prefers an electronic to a print version of a journal wherever possible. Two exceptions are titles for which the online lacks an important component of the print version and titles in the library’s browsing collection. In fact, Drexel purchases electronic-only subscriptions whenever it can. When print and electronic cannot be unbundled, the staff do not add the printed issues to the collection. A crucial factor that enabled Drexel to move forward so aggressively was the principle that “archival storage in most subject areas is not part of the mission of the Drexel Library.”16 Montgomery and Sparks identified information services librarians as the primary obstacles to this change;17 however, response from the faculty in Drexel’s largest colleges, Business and Engineering, was enthusiastic.18 Within one year of the transition to an electronic format, reported use of electronic journals was nearly equal to that of print.19 The university finds the ability to provide access from multiple locations, including support for distance education students, one of the main advantages of the newly electronic collection. Montgomery, Sparks, and other Drexel staff are examining the effects of this transition, particularly focusing on the associated costs. In another article, the authors comment on the space savings this approach offers them: “The transition to electronic journals essentially eliminates space concerns; no more trimming the collection, converting to microfilm, or moving it to a remote location to make space for new volumes.”20 It is striking that Drexel is avoiding microreformatting of collections by forgoing a physical archive of journals.
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (UC) SYSTEM The UC System is comprised of nine campuses, with a tenth under construction. The large number of sizable academic libraries provides a laboratory for experimenting with the effects of relying on electronic rather than print archives. A formal experiment, funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, is under way. The project was motivated by concern that the benefits of electronic forms of scholarly communication “will be diminished if libraries are unable to avoid purchasing and housing print mate-
VOL. 27, NO. 3/4, 2001
99
rials when digital equivalents are available.”21 As with other libraries, limited space on campuses is a key factor that motivates this study.22 In the experiment, titles with electronic equivalents will be selected, and the print runs from selected campuses moved into a regional storage facility. At other campuses, as a control, the print will remain behind. The titles will come from a variety of disciplines, but the total number of disciplines will be limited. Both experimental and control campuses will track usage of electronic versions, and the control campuses will measure circulation and in-house use of the print versions of the removed titles. As with the research conducted at Drexel, the UC project will study the comparative costs of maintaining print and electronic versions. It also will assess end user behavior and preferences. The project will use surveys and structured interviews of users (primarily at experimental campuses) to elicit the circumstances in which the digital version is not an acceptable substitute for the print as well as how users respond when the digital version is inadequate.23 When users at an experimental campus recall a print version from storage, they will be asked to outline the reasons why they did so. A report on these results is expected in January 2002.
SUMMARY As a profession, librarians are wrestling with strategies for coping in an environment in which both print and electronic versions are available (and expected) for many titles. At the libraries mentioned earlier, staff are weighing the costs and benefits of switching to electronic versions. Although Drexel has moved very boldly to replace print with electronic in a manner that eliminates a physical archive, staff do understand the importance of archives and “are ready to pay the cost of access to the archival materials when they are needed.”24 In many libraries, staff are conscientiously researching the effects of this change, whether they do so before they make the decision or during and after the change. All libraries will benefit from this research.
POSTSCRIPT As I wrote this article, the US Supreme Court delivered its decisions in New York Times v. Tasini.25 The
100
SERIALS REVIEW
court found that publishers, such as the New York Times, under existing agreements could not include freelance writers’ articles in electronic databases. Instead, publishers must have freelance writers’ permission, and perhaps make additional payment, before including their work in electronic databases. Publishers have threatened that they may remove such materials from electronic versions rather than renegotiate with authors.26 It is too early to know the extent to which this decision will affect the content of full-text abstracting and indexing databases. Sprague and Chambers found that full-text databases included 62 to 89 percent of major articles in the most current issue.27 Because it will be impossible to locate some authors, the Tasini decision can only reduce the percentage of articles available in such databases. Research and evaluation of electronic replacements for print, such as the cases outlined in this column, will continue to be valuable to the library profession as it copes with the evolution (or perhaps revolution) of electronic versions of print journals.
NOTES 1. Nicholson Baker, Double Fold: Libraries and the Assault on Paper (New York: Random House, 2001). 2. “The E-journal: Online-only Serials. Stats and Facts.” ulrichsweb.com. http://www.ulrichsweb.com/ulrichsweb/ ulrichsweb_news/UlrichsSerialsTrends.asp (25 June 2001). 3. Carolyn Henebry and Ellen Safley, “Before You Cancel the Paper, Beware: All Electronic Journals in 2001 Are Not Created Equal” (workshop given at the Annual Conference of the North American Serials Interest Group, San Antonio, TX, 25 May 2001). 4. Susan Herzog, “The Hardest Choices: Money and Space,” Against the Grain 12, no. 4 (2000): 30–36. 5. Ibid., 30. 6. Ibid 7. Ibid., 34. 8. Nancy Sprague and Mary Beth Chambers, “Full-Text Databases and the Journal Cancellation Process: A Case Study,” Serials Review 26, no. 3 (2000): 19–31. This article includes a thorough review of the literature on comparing print and electronic versions. 9. Ibid., 26. 10. Ibid. 11. See for example, David Goodman, “Nature.” 30 Janu-
– CHRISTA EASTON –
ary 2001. http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/ListArchives/ 0101/msg00045.html (25 June 2001). 12. Sprague and Chambers, “Full-Text Databases and the Journal Cancellation Process,” 27. 13. Ibid., 29. 14. Ibid., 30. 15. Carol Hansen Montgomery and JoAnne Sparks, “The Transition to an Electronic Journal Collection: Managing the Organizational Changes,” Serials Review 26, no. 3 (2000): 4. 16. Ibid., 9. 17. Ibid., 16. 18. Ibid., 8. 19. Ibid., 14. 20. Carol Hansen Montgomery and JoAnne Sparks. “Framework for Assessing the Impact of an Electronic Journal Collection on Library Staffing Patterns.” 24 March 2001. http://www.si.umich.edu/PEAK-2000/ montgomery.pdf (27 June 2001). 21. University of California, Office of the President,
– THE BALANCE POINT –
“Collection Management Strategies in a Digital Environment: A Proposal to the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.” 17 November 2000. http://www.slp.ucop.edu/initiatives/ CMI_Proposal.htm (22 June 2001). 22. Systemwide Library and Scholarly Information Advisory Committee. “Resolution A: Archiving of Print Copies of Journals Available in Both Print and Digital Formats. Background” 14 January 2001. http://www. slp.ucop.edu/initiatives/cmi.html (27 June 2001). 23. University of California, Office of the President. “Collection Management,” 5. 24. Montgomery and Sparks, “The Transition to an Electronic Journal Collection,” 24. 25. ”U.S. Supreme Court Sides With Free-lancers.” CNN.com. 25 June 2001. http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/ 06/25/scotus.copyright/index.html (6 August 2001). 26. CNN.com. “Free-lance Writers Win Supreme Court Case.” 25 June 2001. http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/ 25/scotus.copyright.ap/index.html (26 June 2001). 27. Sprague and Chambers, “Full-Text Databases and the Journal Cancellation Process,” 27.
VOL. 27, NO. 3/4, 2001
101
Christa Easton, Column Editor
DOUBLY BOLD —REPLACING PRINT JOURNALS WITH
ELECTRONIC VERSIONS Christa Easton, Column Editor
Easton is Coordinator, Serials and Government Document Serials, Stanford University Libraries, Stanford, CA 94305-6004; e-mail: [email protected].
– THE BALANCE POINT –
Nicholson Baker’s Double Fold: Libraries and the Assault on Paper has raised public awareness of the issues of microfilm reformatting as a means of preservation.1 The purpose of this “Balance Point” column is not to review Baker’s work but rather to focus on the newest frontier for reformatting: replacing print serials with the electronic version. This trend is evident in the number of e-journals that are generally available. In 2001, Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory listings include 20,430 active online serials, now the predominant alternative to print; microforms comprise 13,580 entries. In 1988, there were 12,000 microforms and only 1,950 online periodicals.2 At a time when the issue of micro reformatting is receiving a burst of attention within the library profession, it is instructive to examine how librarians are approaching electronic reformatting. This article reviews the literature and a presentation regarding electronic reformatting. If there are libraries that replaced print materials with electronic without reflection, they are not likely to publicize that fact and therefore the cases available for study may be skewed. In reviewing these case studies, however, I was struck by the great care, thought, and investment of time library staff made as they considered replacing their print journals with electronic.
VOL. 27, NO. 3/4, 2001
97
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS Staff at the McDermott Library at the University of Texas at Dallas (UTD) began to consider replacing print journals with the electronic version as a response to space concerns. The library is housed in a building that is shared with other units, and a series of renovations squeezed the space available for journal stacks. Library staff were concerned about the quality of electronic versions and made a commitment to faculty that they would not discard any print journals until they verified that the electronic version was complete and of good quality. Carolyn Henebry and Ellen Safley checked print journals page by page against the online version.3 In general, they found many missing issues— particularly where a first issue was made available as a teaser and was subsequently followed by a gap before coverage became consistent. Other problems they found included missing pages, missing supplements, title changes that were not tracked clearly online, and missing color. On the other hand, by changing graphic settings some graphics could be viewed better online than in print. But Henebry and Safley also found a second layer of problems beyond those regarding the quality of electronic versions. They found it difficult to determine to whom problems should be reported, and that publishers or other providers were not necessarily responsive once informed. Although they identified some titles for which the online quality was good enough that they were comfortable in withdrawing the print, the number was low.
CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN UNIVERSITY Herzog4 reports on her comparison of the print versions of Gale Group’s Contemporary Authors (CA), Contemporary Authors New Revision Series (CANR), and Contemporary Literary Criticism (CLC) with the online Literature Resource Center (LRC). The library at California Lutheran University canceled the three print subscriptions when LRC became available. Given space pressures in the reference collection, Herzog later set out to determine if LRC was an adequate replacement for the three print sources both retrospectively and prospectively. Herzog began by posting a message about her situation to several discussion lists. On reading the responses, she discovered that “most of the respon-
98
SERIALS REVIEW
dents had either gone through the same process or were about to, due to dwindling budgets and lack of shelf space.”5 She also learned that “roughly 85% of the literary criticism articles from CLC are currently available via the LRC; the missing 15% reflect articles for which Gale was unable to obtain copyright clearance.”6 Herzog made word-by-word comparisons of the entries for three contemporary authors and obtained mixed results. Although the online versions did not include all of each print entry for biographical information, they did include information from a variety of other print sources, such as the Dictionary of Literary Biography, which her library did not hold in print. In some cases, the online version contained updated information that had changed since the print version was issued. For criticism sources, LRC did not include many reviews that had been included in the print CLC, although the percentage of included reviews rose as one moved closer to the present day. Advertising materials for LRC did state clearly that coverage prior to volume 95 was limited to 266 selected authors.7 Based on her research, Herzog recommended that her library reinstate its subscription to CLC. Although she did not recommend reinstatement of CA and CANR, she opted to keep the library’s existing sets in the library rather than in storage.
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT COLORADO SPRINGS (UCCS) In 1998 and 1999, library staff at UCCS undertook a journal cancellation project. Subject librarians proposed a preliminary list of titles for cancellation. Many of the titles were available to UCCS users as part of one or more full-text abstracting and indexing databases such as ABI/Inform or Expanded Academic ASAP. Library administrators recommended “full-text availability as a primary criteria for cancellation.”8 In response, subject librarians Sprague and Chambers proposed a study to examine the implications of relying on full-text databases to replace canceled titles. Their study focused on the seventy-nine refereed titles that were included in the proposed cancellation list and available via fulltext databases. Their choice of these titles was based on providing a manageable sample size and focusing on the titles most relevant to an academic library.
– CHRISTA EASTON –
The authors examined currency, coverage, graphics, and stability over a six-month period. They found that for 55 percent of titles, the latest available print issue was also available in one or more databases. Of the lagging titles, 36 percent were one issue behind, and 9 percent were two or more issues behind.9 They defined coverage as the extent to which major feature articles in the most recent issue were available but did not examine “supplementary articles or columns, such as editorials, publishers’ information and book reviews.”10 Given the furor within the library community over Nature Publishing Company’s initial decision to embargo many supplementary materials and columns, disregarding supplementtary materials will not be appropriate for all academic libraries.11 Within the definition above, the authors found that databases contained a range of 62 to 89 percent of articles in the print issue. They note that “the database with the best currency rating ranked lowest in completeness, and the database with the highest occurrence of major articles available was the one that scored lowest on currency.”12 Sprague and Chambers found that in many cases, graphics and tables that appeared in the print were not included in the database. Some tables appeared at the end of the article and in nontabular format. Over the six months of the study, two titles that had been identified for cancellation but were excluded from this study because they were not refereed were removed from UCCS’s full-text databases. Sprague and Chambers surveyed OCLC FirstSearch and Gale Group staff regarding their practices in compiling full-text databases. Neither “encouraged replacing print subscriptions with full-text representations in their abstracting and indexing services.”13 This recommendation may come from database producers’ desire not to cut into the print market share of the publishers with whom they contract. The authors emphasize that “these databases are not marketed as collection development options for libraries in the first place.”14 The most important message of their article is that libraries need to be educated consumers of full-text databases, particularly if they consider replacing print subscriptions with database content.
DREXEL UNIVERSITY The WW Hagerty Library at Drexel University moved quickly to replace its print subscriptions with an electronic journal collection. This transition was
– THE BALANCE POINT –
implemented as “the fastest, most cost-effective means of improving an inadequate journal collection and a way to make the collection more accessible” (p. 4).15 Drexel’s model prefers an electronic to a print version of a journal wherever possible. Two exceptions are titles for which the online lacks an important component of the print version and titles in the library’s browsing collection. In fact, Drexel purchases electronic-only subscriptions whenever it can. When print and electronic cannot be unbundled, the staff do not add the printed issues to the collection. A crucial factor that enabled Drexel to move forward so aggressively was the principle that “archival storage in most subject areas is not part of the mission of the Drexel Library.”16 Montgomery and Sparks identified information services librarians as the primary obstacles to this change;17 however, response from the faculty in Drexel’s largest colleges, Business and Engineering, was enthusiastic.18 Within one year of the transition to an electronic format, reported use of electronic journals was nearly equal to that of print.19 The university finds the ability to provide access from multiple locations, including support for distance education students, one of the main advantages of the newly electronic collection. Montgomery, Sparks, and other Drexel staff are examining the effects of this transition, particularly focusing on the associated costs. In another article, the authors comment on the space savings this approach offers them: “The transition to electronic journals essentially eliminates space concerns; no more trimming the collection, converting to microfilm, or moving it to a remote location to make space for new volumes.”20 It is striking that Drexel is avoiding microreformatting of collections by forgoing a physical archive of journals.
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (UC) SYSTEM The UC System is comprised of nine campuses, with a tenth under construction. The large number of sizable academic libraries provides a laboratory for experimenting with the effects of relying on electronic rather than print archives. A formal experiment, funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, is under way. The project was motivated by concern that the benefits of electronic forms of scholarly communication “will be diminished if libraries are unable to avoid purchasing and housing print mate-
VOL. 27, NO. 3/4, 2001
99
rials when digital equivalents are available.”21 As with other libraries, limited space on campuses is a key factor that motivates this study.22 In the experiment, titles with electronic equivalents will be selected, and the print runs from selected campuses moved into a regional storage facility. At other campuses, as a control, the print will remain behind. The titles will come from a variety of disciplines, but the total number of disciplines will be limited. Both experimental and control campuses will track usage of electronic versions, and the control campuses will measure circulation and in-house use of the print versions of the removed titles. As with the research conducted at Drexel, the UC project will study the comparative costs of maintaining print and electronic versions. It also will assess end user behavior and preferences. The project will use surveys and structured interviews of users (primarily at experimental campuses) to elicit the circumstances in which the digital version is not an acceptable substitute for the print as well as how users respond when the digital version is inadequate.23 When users at an experimental campus recall a print version from storage, they will be asked to outline the reasons why they did so. A report on these results is expected in January 2002.
SUMMARY As a profession, librarians are wrestling with strategies for coping in an environment in which both print and electronic versions are available (and expected) for many titles. At the libraries mentioned earlier, staff are weighing the costs and benefits of switching to electronic versions. Although Drexel has moved very boldly to replace print with electronic in a manner that eliminates a physical archive, staff do understand the importance of archives and “are ready to pay the cost of access to the archival materials when they are needed.”24 In many libraries, staff are conscientiously researching the effects of this change, whether they do so before they make the decision or during and after the change. All libraries will benefit from this research.
POSTSCRIPT As I wrote this article, the US Supreme Court delivered its decisions in New York Times v. Tasini.25 The
100
SERIALS REVIEW
court found that publishers, such as the New York Times, under existing agreements could not include freelance writers’ articles in electronic databases. Instead, publishers must have freelance writers’ permission, and perhaps make additional payment, before including their work in electronic databases. Publishers have threatened that they may remove such materials from electronic versions rather than renegotiate with authors.26 It is too early to know the extent to which this decision will affect the content of full-text abstracting and indexing databases. Sprague and Chambers found that full-text databases included 62 to 89 percent of major articles in the most current issue.27 Because it will be impossible to locate some authors, the Tasini decision can only reduce the percentage of articles available in such databases. Research and evaluation of electronic replacements for print, such as the cases outlined in this column, will continue to be valuable to the library profession as it copes with the evolution (or perhaps revolution) of electronic versions of print journals.
NOTES 1. Nicholson Baker, Double Fold: Libraries and the Assault on Paper (New York: Random House, 2001). 2. “The E-journal: Online-only Serials. Stats and Facts.” ulrichsweb.com. http://www.ulrichsweb.com/ulrichsweb/ ulrichsweb_news/UlrichsSerialsTrends.asp (25 June 2001). 3. Carolyn Henebry and Ellen Safley, “Before You Cancel the Paper, Beware: All Electronic Journals in 2001 Are Not Created Equal” (workshop given at the Annual Conference of the North American Serials Interest Group, San Antonio, TX, 25 May 2001). 4. Susan Herzog, “The Hardest Choices: Money and Space,” Against the Grain 12, no. 4 (2000): 30–36. 5. Ibid., 30. 6. Ibid 7. Ibid., 34. 8. Nancy Sprague and Mary Beth Chambers, “Full-Text Databases and the Journal Cancellation Process: A Case Study,” Serials Review 26, no. 3 (2000): 19–31. This article includes a thorough review of the literature on comparing print and electronic versions. 9. Ibid., 26. 10. Ibid. 11. See for example, David Goodman, “Nature.” 30 Janu-
– CHRISTA EASTON –
ary 2001. http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/ListArchives/ 0101/msg00045.html (25 June 2001). 12. Sprague and Chambers, “Full-Text Databases and the Journal Cancellation Process,” 27. 13. Ibid., 29. 14. Ibid., 30. 15. Carol Hansen Montgomery and JoAnne Sparks, “The Transition to an Electronic Journal Collection: Managing the Organizational Changes,” Serials Review 26, no. 3 (2000): 4. 16. Ibid., 9. 17. Ibid., 16. 18. Ibid., 8. 19. Ibid., 14. 20. Carol Hansen Montgomery and JoAnne Sparks. “Framework for Assessing the Impact of an Electronic Journal Collection on Library Staffing Patterns.” 24 March 2001. http://www.si.umich.edu/PEAK-2000/ montgomery.pdf (27 June 2001). 21. University of California, Office of the President,
– THE BALANCE POINT –
“Collection Management Strategies in a Digital Environment: A Proposal to the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.” 17 November 2000. http://www.slp.ucop.edu/initiatives/ CMI_Proposal.htm (22 June 2001). 22. Systemwide Library and Scholarly Information Advisory Committee. “Resolution A: Archiving of Print Copies of Journals Available in Both Print and Digital Formats. Background” 14 January 2001. http://www. slp.ucop.edu/initiatives/cmi.html (27 June 2001). 23. University of California, Office of the President. “Collection Management,” 5. 24. Montgomery and Sparks, “The Transition to an Electronic Journal Collection,” 24. 25. ”U.S. Supreme Court Sides With Free-lancers.” CNN.com. 25 June 2001. http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/ 06/25/scotus.copyright/index.html (6 August 2001). 26. CNN.com. “Free-lance Writers Win Supreme Court Case.” 25 June 2001. http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/ 25/scotus.copyright.ap/index.html (26 June 2001). 27. Sprague and Chambers, “Full-Text Databases and the Journal Cancellation Process,” 27.
VOL. 27, NO. 3/4, 2001
101