Re: Print vs Online (4 messages) Rick Anderson 03 Jul 2002 18:02 UTC
I figured I'd be shaking a hornet's nest with my comments earlier! I'm grateful for the follow-up comments, and here are some responses: >From Virginia Taffurelli: > Be very cautious about cancelling print in lieu of online access. Many > publishers impose an embargo period for making issues available > electronically. Not all journals are imaged. Some are not completely > full-text. Sometimes researches need to see the juxtaposition of articles > with advertisements or other articles. Some backfiles are incomplete. This is all very true, and these are important caveats. It's also important, though, that when you make your format decisions you be careful to weigh the pros and cons of _both_ formats. The question is not "Does the online version give me everything the print version does?" Rather, the question is "Which version of the content will serve my patrons best?" Your answer will vary depending on your patrons and the resource in question. But I suggest that it is very possible to serve patrons better with an incomplete online resource than with a complete print resource. As I said in my original message, it depends on what you're trying to do and whom you're doing it for. > The ideal scenario is to maintain both formats, if your library can afford > the cost and the space for storing the print or microfilm replacememt. Not to mention the staff required to manage both a print and an online collection. That is not an inconsequential expense. >From Thomas McCaffrey: > "a lousy way to disseminate information"? indeed!! Give me the > printed word anytime. There is so much unreliable about online, so much > garbage out there! Well, yes... but that's hardly uniquely true of the online environment. (May I refer you to an Edwin Mellen Press catalog?) But bear in mind that we're not talking about replacing authoritative print publications with a Google search. We're talking about changing formats. Or do you believe that Books in Print online is less reliable than the print edition? > Scholars have been pouring over books for thousands of years, and > hopefully, > will continue to do so for eternity. The internet would be > nowhere were it > not for the collected wisdom of the ages available in books. Every day, > millions of children are turned on to the joys and advantages of reading > BOOKS--not computer screens, which are flipped like so many TV > channels and > deleted or lost forever. I agree entirely. I'm in the middle of several books myself, and never plan to quit reading books. I read books to my children every night. I don't think anyone loves books more than I do. But there's a very large difference between reading and doing research. If you're looking for discrete pieces of information -- a composer's death date, a journal citation, an attribution for a quote, a set of journal articles relevant to a particular topic -- there is simply no comparison between online and print resources. Online wins hands down. And if you're trying to _distribute_ research articles, the same is true. Why on earth would we stick with a model that makes scholars wait for weeks at a time (often months) to receive a bundle of ten or twelve articles, most of which will be irrelevant to their interests and all of which the scholar will have to make a trip across campus to read (assuming that someone else doesn't get to the issue first) when we have the option of distributing the articles individually, as they're ready for publication, to multiple readers simultaneously, according to preset criteria that minimize irrelevant citations? There is simply no rational way to defend print as a distribution method. It does not work. It's a pleasurable reading method, yes, but an extremely wasteful and ineffective distribution method. > Eventually, soon, this "information age" will be > supplanted by some > other form of progress, something which will sweep civilization into the > next "gotta-have-it" mania And when that happens it will behoove librarians to evaluate the new technology, compare it to what has gone before, adopt it to the degree that it makes sense to do so, and be willing to let go of whatever has been obviated by it. Again, the critical question is "How can we serve our patrons best?". It is not "How can we preserve tradition?" or "How can we get our patrons to use the resources we like best?". ------------- Rick Anderson Director of Resource Acquisition The University Libraries University of Nevada, Reno "I'm not against the modern 1664 No. Virginia St. world. I just don't think Reno, NV 89557 everything's for sale." PH (775) 784-6500 x273 -- Elvis Costello FX (775) 784-1328 rickand@unr.edu