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]