From: Winston Tabb <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 19:33:17 +0000

And because they are parties to consortial agreements that have
efficiently distributed responsibility for journal retention.

On Apr 7, 2013, at 5:13 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]