Email list hosting service & mailing list manager


Re: Print vs Online Peter Picerno 08 Jul 2002 21:31 UTC

I would imagine that Rick can do away with the fire-retardent apparel (it's
too hot to be wearing all that gear, anyway!) since some of the concepts he
expresses are worthy of consideration. I'd like to address a couple of them:

Archiving has been as expressed: until the advent of e-publishing, it was
the provenance of libraries. The fact of the matter remains that if it were
not for the dread site-license, it could (and would) still be the provenance
of libraries, except that there has been no model worked out for this.
Publishers won't presently allow it. I think that part of that reason is
that we, in the USA, do not have a national library which would be a very
likely place for such a project to reside in terms of a funding source and a
centrally accessible set of servers. Things like Project Muse and JSTOR show
us a glimmer of what such a model could be, but these projects exist at
institutions of higher learning and while they are both extremely valuable,
they cannot begin to cover many of the bases for archiving journal
literature for all disciplines and from various publishing sources, nor can
their funding sources extend that far. In addition to the consideration of
details such as servers, access, and such, the little detail of copyright
enters into this discussion in a big way ... especially when one considers
the digital copyright complications. It *would* be possible to negotiate
some sort of comprimise which would permit the sort of archiving which Rick
envisions, but it would mean that libraries, publishers, authors, and
lawmakers would all have to drop their historically-based ideas and opinions
and look towards a future which none of those groups has been prepared (or
possibly even willing) to consider.

In terms of ILL versus rush purchase of monographs, yes, a lot of collection
development and acquisitions is based on speculative use ... but that's
where skill, knowledge of collections and communities of users creates an
indefinable factor which cannot be quantitatively or qualitatively expressed
(well, maybe it could but it would take lots of work!). Some libraries are
not allowed have instutional credit cards which makes dealing with places
like B&N.com or Amazon.com next-to-impossible -- nor do those vendors have
everything in print immediately available, and items which are out-of-print
or which are relatively rare because of short publication runs are also
difficult to get shipped rush. Rather than relying on a vendor's concept of
'rush' or on a true inability to be able to produce a desired item in a
short time, ILL is one sure way of getting what the patron wants in as
speedily as possible.

Peter Picerno

-----Original Message-----
From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum
[mailto:SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU]On Behalf Of Rick Anderson
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 4:13 PM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: Print vs Online

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