Re: Library Holdings vs Full-text Databases (Simone Yu) ERCELAA@ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu 07 Dec 2000 14:42 UTC

Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 16:28:58 -0800
From: "Yu, Simone" <Yu_Simone@GSB.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Library Holdings vs Full-text Databases (David Goodman)

I do think we (all interested parties) should take part in this task of
preserving our culture.  The Library of Congress, BNB, and big public
libraries such as NYPL and LAPL all look after the interest of the general
public.  The cost (acquiring all published trade journals for all periods;
processing, binding, and other maintenance cost such as claiming, repairing;
providing physical shelf space and storage space; resheving, ILL, and other
access cost, reference cost, etc.)is another matter.  When publishers refuse
to sell to aggregators, they most likely will sell their own material
themselves--electronically or otherwise.
I hope special libraries will preserve trade journals in their own fields.
Same with undergraduate trade school libraries maintaining permanent files
of representative trade journals to satisfy their users' needs.
The selection process is also altogether another matter.  For our part, we
will preserve as many trade journals as needed for our mission and within
the context of our budget priorities and constraints.  However, this is not
to say that we do not consider social (regional--US) responsibilities at all
in our overall collection development practice.

Simone Yu
simoneyu@gsb.stanford.edu

Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 21:46:38 -0500
From: David Goodman <dgoodman@PHOENIX.PRINCETON.EDU>
Subject: Re: Library Holdings vs Full-text Databases (Simone Yu)

Yes, it does depend on the mission of the library and
the subject. I would regard your policy as perfectly appropriate to a
special library in a corporation or an undergraduate business trade
school. But I ask you, if libraries like Stanford do not
take responsibility for maintaining permanent files of these non-scholarly
titles, what
libraries do you expect would do it?  They will be of permanent historical
interest in many areas and across many disciplines.

I am not necessarily saying you in particular should do it, but that the
profession needs appropriate organization and acceptance of the
responsibilities, and I think the appropriate professional group to
undertake it is librarians, not publishers.

David Goodman, Princeton University
Biology Library
dgoodman@princeton.edu            609-258-3235

> Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 14:08:10 -0800
> From: "Yu, Simone" <Yu_Simone@GSB.STANFORD.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Library Holdings vs Full-text Databases (David Goodman)
>
> Perhaps depending on the discipline you are in and the usage of the
> journals, you may feel confident or more comfortable in canceling print
> subscriptions.  We are a business library and we have cancelled most trade
> journals that are full-text in Dow Jones Interactive, and in most cases,
> they are also full-text in ABI/Inform (Proquest Direct), in Academic
> Universe (Lexis/Nexis), and many other packages.  Proquest includes
tables,
> charts, and graphs for trade journals, and DJI includes tables.  Also,
most
> business libraries subscribe to TableBase which duplicates most tables in
> journals, investment research reports, government publications, etc.  For
> business information, trade journal is one of many types of publication to
> obtain industry/trade information.  Researchers in business typically rely
> heavily on numerical historical data sets and/or management journals or
> journals in other disciplines in the social sciences, i.e. they seldom
quote
> trade journals.
>
> For popular titles such as Fortune, Forbes, Business Week, etc. that are
> omnipresent and in multiple formats (print, electronic, microfiche/film)
for
> every library, corporation, institution, and all over the world, we have
> stopped binding them.
>
> So, relying on the fact that we will always have DJI, ABI, some form of
> Lexis/Nexis, TableBase, and document delivery, we are aggressively
canceling
> trade journal subscriptions.
>
> Most important of all, most business people need trade publications for
> current information and not for historical narratives.
>
> Other options are outsourcing, document delivery service, interlibrary
loan,
> and consortia agreements.
>
> Let's also hope that another institution, following JSTOR, Project Muse,
> IDEAL, HighWire Press, will take on the responsibility of archiving more
> scholarly management journals.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Simone Yu
> Asst Bibliographer/Research Librarian
> J Hugh Jackson Library
> Graduate School of Business
> Stanford University
> simoneyu@gsb.stanford.edu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >
> > Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 11:28:27 -0500
> > From: Judy McConnell <jmcconne@PCT.EDU>
> > Subject: Library Holdings vs Full-text Databases
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > First of all let me thank all of you who responded to my query on
> > "Compact Shelving"  - appreciated your time and feedback.
> >
> > Now I would like to know if any one has created a Policy for
> > maintaining current titles (both paper and/or microfilm) that are also
> > in a full-text database?
> >
> > We subscribe to Proquest Direct and have dropped a few of our current
> > subscriptions for titles in full-text and have continued to purchase
> > microfilm.
> >
> > As our library is now experiencing space and budget constraints, we
> > want to develop a policy for maintaining or discontinuing the purchase
> > of duplicate (and sometimes triplicate) subscriptions for titles in
> > full-text.  I think that we are not quite comfortable yet in
> > relinquishing our control and yet it maybe time to "just do it".
> >
> > I would be interested in what others have done, and what problems or
> > advantages or disadvantages they have experienced.
> >
> > Thanks in Advance,
> > Judy McConnell
> >
> > Judy F. McConnell
> > Assistant Professor
> > Serials Librarian
> > Penn College Library DIF #69
> > One College Avenue
> > Williamsport, PA 17701-5799
> > Phone: 570-320-2400  X7458
> > Fax: 570-327-4503
> > E-mail: jmcconne@pct.edu
>