RE: Ebsco Full-Text Databases Post

[Marg Walker <marg.walker@chmeds.ac.nz>]

Karen

You asked me to elaborate on my comment that "our users obtain better
access to information via the paper copy.".

This is just a perception - no real evidence at all.  However a number of
library users have commented that they find it easier scanning a paper
copy than reading the electronic version.
 
This may be partly a result of time constraints, but their comments seem
to indicate that their mode of reading involves fast scanning the article,
or flipping backwards and forwards and that they can't negotiate the
electronic copy as fluently or quickly as they can the paper copy.

We are also aware of the value of browsing journals, and at this stage we
aren't browsing the electronic journals although there would be related
ways of accessing electronic journals.

Re browsing access - our Senior Clinical Advisor, a highly respected
person who is very aware of costs, surprised us by stating in a recent
workshop that he preferred paper copies as many important pieces of
clinical information which had a direct bearing on improvements in
clinical services have come to him serendipitously as he browsed a journal
next to the one he was intending to view.

However, our clinicians must have early access to information they can't
wait for the paper copy to arrive so they need electronic. Since we won't
be able to pay for two subscriptions I forsee an eventual move to
electronic-only for our library.

Regards
Marg

_______________

At 06:20 PM 29-03-01 EST, you wrote:
>Marg,
>
>I am intrigued by your statement that "our users obtain better access to
>information via the paper copy."  That runs counter to what we are
>hearing. Could you elaborate on what you meant, please.
>
>Karen Hunter
>Senior Vice President
>Elsevier Science
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Marg Walker
>To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
>Sent: 3/27/01 6:51 PM
>Subject: Re: Ebsco Full-Text Databases Post
>
>The demand for electronic access within our user group is such that we
>will be considering cancelling our paper subscriptions in favour of
>electronic copies.  We would expect to pay a fair subscription for this,
>but we can't afford two subscriptions for the same journal.
>
>FACTORS IN OUR USER DEMAND FOR ELECTRONIC One factor in the demand for
>electronic is the reverse of the situation stated by David Goodman, who
>noted that the electronic copy often had less content than the paper
>version and no graphic material.  On the contrary we find that medical
>publishers are sometimes providing additional material in the electronic
>copy. The graphic material is also now appearing as a pdf download.
>
>Other factors in the move to electronic are the currency (paper journals
>take ages to reach the antipodes), and the immediacy (medics don't like to
>walk to the library).  We won't be rushing to move to electronic for every
>journal however, because even though the demand is high our perception is
>that our users obtain better access to information via the paper copy.
>
>JOURNAL BUDGETS AND THE MOVE TO ELECTRONIC Our budget is shrinking in
>buying power each year.  We have been forced to cancel over one third of
>our subscriptions in the last few years since the New Zealand Dollar has
>dropped in value.  I know we are only a small player but it sounds as
>though libraries world wide have less journal buying power.
>
>All of the journals we purchase are considered essential by our users so
>usage is important in deciding what to retain.  Journals which are
>available online and which also have good usage will be the last to go.
>
>We would definitely have cancelled the American Journal of Medical
>Genetics last year if it hadn't gone electronic and offered us an
>advantageous subscription deal.  The cost per issue is appalling, even
>though usage is high and the user group tell us the journal is essential.
>
>Electronic journals are an administrative nightmare from our point of view
>and society publishers are very difficult to deal with (they rarely answer
>any communication). Aggregated online services are the only way to go and
>we will deal with them wherever possible.  Non-aggregated services which
>don't try to ensure that specific journals will remain with the service
>aren't of any interest to us.
>
>DOCUMENT DELIVERY VS PURCHASE Once we cancel a journal it is very
>difficult for our users to obtain access to the journal since the cost of
>interloans is prohibitive and most do not have the budget allowance to
>interloan.  It would be wonderful if publishers could eventually find a
>model where individual articles could be delivered at a reasonable cost.
>
>Somehow I feel that there must be a way to exploit this market while
>maintaining income for the publisher.  Come on entrepreneurial publishers
>- there must be a wunderkind who can make the technology work for us with
>single view articles or some such?
>
>That being said it must be difficult being a publisher out there at
>present.
>
>Regards
>Marg Walker