on Wed, 3 Jul 2002 Rick Anderson <rickand@UNR.EDU> wrote

[snip]

> 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?".

        Electronic technology applied to reference works,
        such as Books in Print, and information services
        has worked very well for a long time. Even before
        'online' developed, Engineering Index, and the
        like were supplying tapes to subscribers. These
        information services were the first electronic
        publishers.

        The difficulty with online editions of journals
        and newspapers is the omission of items found in
        the printed editions. Many magazines and newspapers
        have dropped freelancers' articles from full-text
        databases (rather than pay them). Many sources,
        such as PubMed, omit material published more
        than a few years or decades ago. The 'full-text'
        edition of British Medical Journal available
        through Infotrac also comes up short. For example,
        two letters published in the Feb 26 1994 issue
        responding to a Jan 29, 1994 editorial titled
        "The Scandal of Poor Medical Research" [308
        p 283]do not show up, even as citations.

        Such omissions must mislead readers to believe
        that contributions (that may be important) do not
        exist. It less than a year ago that a Johns
        Hopkins research volunteer died because the
        research was prepared with a sloppy review
        of the literature.

        My point is that by promoting online formats
        that are incomplete, publishers and libraries
        contribute to "the scandal" of poor research,
        described by the BMJ editorial cited above. An
        ethical solution would require a detailed
        description of the deficits and possible side
        effects online editions as alternatives to print.
        Editors of a number of (medical) journals have
        been calling on authors to discuss their
        conclusions with reference to the entirety of
        the published literature. Compliance with this
        standard can only be accomplished by authors
        who are fully supported by adequate resources.

Albert Henderson
Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000
<70244.1532@compuserve.com>

.
.
.
.