RE: Is it time to stop printing journals?

Following this discussion I would be interested to hear some

experiences from you on the following topic.

One big advantage of the print version of a journal is the
fact 
that scholars come to the library to see what new issues of
the 
journals that they are interested in have arrived. They than
pick 
up these issues and browse through them: scan the table of 
contents, look at an index, quickly read through some
abstracts, 
take a look at the book reviews and so on. This kind of 
serendipity browsing is lacking in the e-journals.

I can understand that publishers would be interested to see
how 
people deal with this in the e-environment, because selling

advertisements is -in my opinion-- strongly related
specifically 
to this aspect.

Like to hear your comments, suggestions, experiences.

Kind greetings,
Michel Wesseling
Head of Library and IT Services
Institute of Social Studies Den Haag Netherlands

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-llists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-llists.yale.edu] On Behalf
Of Greg Tananbaum
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 1:50 AM
To: liblicense-llists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: Is it time to stop printing journals?

Scott Plutchak from UAB writes in his blog response:

"We certainly don't need to keep the print to satisfy
our user 
base.  Two years ago we stopped getting any print for our 
ScienceDirect titles.  I did not get a single question,
comment, 
or expression of concern from faculty or students.  We've
reached 
the point where librarians tend to worry a lot more about
the 
print than the people who use our libraries do."

I am curious to hear whether this is a commonly held
sentiment. 
In other words, do the librarians on this list have the
sense 
that their patrons are operating in a post-print world (not
in 
the OA/PMC/Battle Royale sense of the term, but meaning have
we 
outgrown print)?  If so, this would be a remarkable shift,
and a 
remarkably quick one.  Certainly when I helped launch The 
Berkeley Electronic Press in 2000, print was sacrosanct. 
The 
idea of a viable electronic-only journal publisher was met
with 
feedback running the wide gamut from skepticism to scorn. 
If 
this equation has indeed flipped in a matter of a half-dozen
or 
so years, this ranks as one of the most important periods in

scholarly communication history.

Best, Greg

Greg Tananbaum
gtananbaumgmail.com
(510) 295-7504

On 3/28/07, T Scott Plutchak <tscottuab.edu> wrote:
>
> I've posted a reply to Mark's questions here:
> http://tscott.typepad.com/tsp/2007/03/no_more_print.html

>
> T. Scott Plutchak
>
> Director, Lister Hill Library of the Health Sciences
> University of Alabama at Birmingham
> tscottuab.edu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-liblicense-llists.yale.edu] On Behalf
Of Mark Leader
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 5:08 PM
> To: liblicense-llists.yale.edu
> Subject: Is it time to stop printing journals?
>
> The American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) is
considering
> discontinuing the print version of its journal
Molecular Biology
> of the Cell (MBC). We welcome comments from the library
community
> about the value of print journals and the adequacy of
LOCKSS,
> Portico, and PubMed Central as archives of electronic
journals.
> We are also curious about whether librarians would be
interested
> in a print-on-demand option for obtaining archival
print copies
> if regular print subscriptions were discontinued.
>
> The impetus for discontinuing the print edition is a
desire to reduce
> author charges, especially for color figures. The cost
of producing the
> print edition greatly exceeds revenue from print
subscriptions. Author
> charges (page charges and color charges) are the
largest source of
> revenue for the journal. In effect, authors are
subsidizing the print
> subscriptions.
>
> We suspect that it is not feasible to raise the print
subscription rate
> enough to cover the cost of print. The many-fold
increase in the
> subscription rate that would be required would likely
launch a vicious
> cycle of declining subscriptions and escalating
subscription rates and
> would be tantamount to discontinuing the print journal
anyway, but in a
> sloppy, uncontrolled manner. The online version of MBC
is the journal of
> record and is rich in material not found in print:
>
> More than 60% of the articles include supplemental data
or videos
> online.  Since 2000, print subscriptions have been
available only
> to institutions that also have online subscriptions
(and to ASCB
> members, who receive access to the online journal as a
benefit of
> membership).
>
> The online institutional subscription rate is on the
low side:
> $578 for approximately 5400 pages per year.  The print
> subscription rate is ridiculously low:  an additional
$83 for a
> U.S. institution.  For 2007, the rates were increased
for the
> first time since 2002.  As we strive to maintain the
journal's
> financial viability while maintaining a fair balance of
revenue
> sources, we ve had to take a hard look at the value of
the print
> journal, which seems to be expensive to produce and
perhaps
> unnecessary. We have been soliciting comments from
authors,
> editors, and ASCB members and would also like to hear
from
> librarians.
>
> Thanks in advance for your advice!
>
> W. Mark Leader
> Director of Publications
> American Society for Cell Biology
> mleaderascb.org