From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 11:36:31 -0400

Dropping print on the library side is one thing, dropping it on the
publishing side is something else.  It makes perfect economic sense
for publishers to drop print, and then they do and regret it.  This is
because, for some unknown reason, dropping print often results in more
cancellations of society memberships.  Makes no sense, right?

Joe Esposito


On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 4:42 AM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Bill Cohen <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 08:37:16 -0400
>
> Sally,
>
> One can surmise theories.  Listserve recipients would know how
> accurate these are.   Some university "libraries of record" in the USA
> still collect the print because of...
>
> 1) institutional inertia?
>
> 2) pressure from older faculty members?
>
> 3) "specialized collection" status? (i.e., smaller special collections
> for Schools of Public Health, Social Work, Anthropology, etc.) where
> the number of core journals needed by the faculty could be limited.
>
> 4) existing ownership of relatively long runs of print journals?
>
> 5) sufficient funding/budgeting for print journal ownership and maintenance?
>
> 6) fear of "loss of content" because of server problems from online
> journals, coupled with lack of practical knowledge about whether
> disparate journals/journal packages utilize backup services?
>
> These are a few that come to mind.
>
>  Bill
>
> On 4/5/13 4:59 AM, LIBLICENSE wrote:
>
> > From: Sally Morris <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 11:11:15 +0100
> >
> > It has been noted repeatedly how much these costs would fall if libraries
> > would drop print journals entirely. Yet they don't - why not?
> >
> > Sally
> >
> > Sally Morris
> > South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
> > Email:  [log in to unmask]