Ebsco's post; online full text vs print

["Carlson, David" <DCarlson@bridgew.edu>]

The discussion prompted by Ebsco's post regarding the balance between
online full text and print prompts this post.
 
About four years ago, the Library at Bridgewater State started an academic
year offering more journals in online full text than current print
subscriptions for the first time. The online full text count includes all
titles offered in full text to which we provide access, such as those
titles via aggregator databases, e.g. Ebsco's Academic Search Premier and
Gale databases, and other sources, such as AP IDEAL, ACM Digital Library,
JSTOR, Muse, etc. Four years ago, the change occurred but the difference
was not that significant; today the difference is vast. BSC's library now
offers nearly ten times the number of titles in online full text than
print. While there has been a few strategic cancellations of some print
titles, by and large, this has taken place without cuts to print journals.
(The online full text is a firm number based on vendor-provided lists of
titles that we aggregate in to a journal title locator database for local
use.)
 
But there are some caveats to the online full text number: it is not a
de-dup'd number. It is also not a "de-junk'd" number (that we offer Good
Housekeeping via its inclusion in two different aggregator databases is
not especially noteworthy....). It is impossible to say what the numbers
would be if these two factors were included but even if they cut the
online full text number in half -- a generous estimate I think -- it means
we now offer just five times the number of online full text over print.
Gee.
 
As usual, graphics speak louder than words and numbers. I have done a
simple graph of the number of titles we have in print versus online. The
excel-based chart is attached to this message. For summary sake and for
those who may have trouble opening it, the column chart looks like this
(where X = apx. 1,000 and x = apx. 500 titles):
 
  -- Number of Titles -- 
Online: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Print:   Xx
 
A second chart graphs the amount of money we spent on print vs. online.
That excel-based chart is also attached but in summary it looks like this
(where X = apx. $25,000):
 
  -- Cost --
Online: XXXX
Print:   XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
 
BSC's library has aggressively pursued online full text, but I would
venture that the numbers at other academic libraries while perhaps not as
drastic would show a similar trend.
 
In the context of Ebsco's post and an argument that suggests, essentially,
libraries should support print to support online, the comparison of titles
vs cost is informative. There are, of course, caveats to a comparison of
online full text with print. Some of these include: archival record,
inability or difficult to browse, annual access commitment vs. ownership,
lack of collection focus/relevance, and increasing use of embargo periods.
All good points and worthy of professionally informed consideration. Let
it also be noted, however, that this is not a one-way street and there are
advantages to the online to be tallied: convenience and ease of usage,
location independence and support of distance ed., ability to keyword
search, use in other applications (such as ereserves, email and crossref)
and minimal space implications.
 
Clearly, publishers are struggling with how to deal with this new world
(as are we all...). I suggest that these numbers show that the income from
the online full text is being viewed as supplemental and as an accessory
to the print. If this is the way these numbers look to my library on the
expense side, the charts must look very similar to publishers on the
income side of the equation. We in libraries are doing the same thing as
publishers -- viewing the print as supplemental, not strategic. This is a
critical issue and is at the heart of Ebsco's posting, I believe.
 
Online full text may become the victim of its own success. As these
services become more reliable, more robust, more accepted and, thereby,
more strategic, libraries will become increasingly willing to drop print
because they're buying it online in full text. I think this is inevitable
and the current environment of relatively good economics may have delayed
the day but I believe it's coming. When it comes, one of two reactions is
possible. Publishers will withdraw their titles from these platforms -OR-
they will shift their strategic emphasis; a balance sheet that reflects
the importance of print will become e-focused instead. And what that will
mean for libraries is increased, perhaps much increased, costs for online
full text -- which will do little more than encourage more libraries to
cancel print in order to support the online which will make the trend
stronger and faster, feeding on itself.
 
I don't think this is is a disaster or negative scenario. I think it's
change. Indeed, I think that the economies of scale made possible by
information technologies will at the end of all this will enable an
environment where libraries will offer better and improved access to
information than a print-dominated world. Call me Pollyanna but here I
stand....
 
Perhaps best to end by quoting recent Oscar winner Bob Dylan: the times
they are a-changin....
 
-----
David Carlson, Director of Libraries
Maxwell Library, Bridgewater State College
Bridgewater, MA 02325
Email:  <mailto:dcarlson@bridgew.edu> dcarlson@bridgew.edu
Voice: 508/531-1256
Fax: 508/531-1349