Re: Print vs Online Rick Anderson 08 Jul 2002 20:13 UTC
I appreciate Peter's cogent and reasonable comments, and would like to add just one more of my own (hopefully as cogent and reasonable as his): > One aspect of this discussion, it seems to me, which has been omitted or > ignored though it has been implied under the rubric of 'stability of > e-formats' is the long-term access to backfiles. The advent of online journals has made the whole issue of archiving much more complex than it used to be. Ten years ago it was a given that libraries would provide the long-term archives of journal content; today, in the online realm, that role logically shifts to publishers, and there is no reason to expect that they're going to do a good job of it. After all, archiving is completely foreign to the publisher's natural role, which is to get stuff out into the marketplace and let others archive it as they see fit. But if publishers are going to sell us online access instead of print copies, they seem to have stuck themselves with the responsibility of providing a robust archive. But at the risk of alienating everyone I haven't already alienated by dissing print, I'd like to suggest that long-term archiving is neither an appropriate role for publishers nor an appropriate central mission for most libraries. I think it's time, frankly, for librarians to focus much less on the permanence of our collections and much more on developing the ability to provide current content with greater speed, ease and transparency to our patrons. This can't be equally true for all libraries of all types, of course; a deep and permanent archive is an integral part of some libraries' practical function. But contrary to our automatic professional assumptions, I don't think such is the case for most libraries, and not even for most research libraries, which are now in a situation where the ability to give people what they tell us they need is hindered by a focus on ordering, processing and storing things that we think they may need in the future. (For an example of this tendency, think about your institution's interlibrary loan policy. If it's like ours, it says to patrons "Oh, you want Book X? And we don't have it? Well, we can't bother the Acquisitions staff to rush-order a copy -- they're busy processing the approval plan shipment, which consists of books that we think may be of use to you later. So we'll see if another library has Book X and then go through the tortuous and extremely inefficient process of borrowing it from that library on your behalf. Hang on for a few weeks, and we'll get back to you.") I know this sounds crazy, but think about it: what if we could rely on a handful of institutions (either a few selected libraries or some other, as-yet-uninvented third party) to house a permanent archive of most journal content, and the rest of us were freed up to focus on improving our patrons' access to current information? We could establish a policy of rush-ordering copies of the old articles piece-by-piece as requested by patrons, and could then redirect tons of staff time to actually improving our real-time patron services instead of investing it in the massive just-in-case gamble that is our current collecting and cataloging practice. It has long seemed to me that the great unspoken scandal of our profession is not (_pax_ Albert and the BMJ) the fact that we're supporting poor research, but the fact that we spend such a huge amount of time and money on information that NO ONE EVER USES. I think we have a chance to fix that, and it seems to me that _that_ project should be of prime importance to us. (Hang on, please, while I don my flame-retardant goggles.) OK, fire at will. ------------- 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