What to Withdraw: Print Collections Management in the Wake of Digitization

Ithaka-S+R-final-logo_art-(2).jpg As journals are increasingly accessed in digitized form, many libraries have grown interested in de-accessioning little-used print originals; but desires to repurpose space often come into conflict with concerns about preservation. “What to Withdraw: Print Collections Management in the Wake of Digitization” analyzes which types of journals can be withdrawn responsibly today and how that set of materials can be expanded to allow libraries the maximum possible flexibility and savings in the future.

For journals that are principally accessed in digital form, preservation is the primary remaining role of the print original. This study analyzes the rationales for retaining some copies of scholarly journals in print format, determining that actual ongoing community needs for print materials in the face of high quality and well-preserved digitization are significant but not unlimited.

Based on the expected continuing needs for print materials, this report considers the minimum time period for which access to the original will be required and assesses the number of print copies necessary to ensure that these goals are met. While complex, this methodology provides for a variety of risk profiles based on key characteristics, with preservation recommendations that similarly vary. For example, many materials that are adequately digitized and preserved in digital form, contain few images, and are held in certain quantities in system-wide print repositories may be safely withdrawn from local print holdings without impacting either preservation or access.

At the same time, the report warns that other print materials may not yet be ready for broad withdrawal without threatening both access and preservation goals. For these materials, a number of strategies are recommended to increase the flexibility available to libraries in the future.

This report is intended to allow libraries to redeploy the resources devoted to print collections management to special collections, digital collections, or new services. We encourage you to share your thoughts with us and with the community by sending us your comments using the comment feature below.

Download the full document.

Print Collections Decision-Support Tool: To assist librarians with collections management decisions, Ithaka S+R is developing a decision-support tool to apply the logic of the "What to Withdraw" report. The current version of this tool is now available and can be used by librarians to determine which JSTOR-digitized journals meet the “What to Withdraw” criteria.

Rationales for Print Retention

Posted by Gary Frost at September 29, 2009 06:00 PM

I find it disconcerting that the rationales for community attention to print retention do not include the most obvious; authentication of screen surrogates. The print collections are self-authenticating, capable of continuing forensic and bibliographical investigation. As importantly their contents, physical and conceptual, are overt permitting verification of absence as well as presence of an evidence. This attribute is particularly relevant in support of screen based delivery from print sources since the surrogates cannot sustain such continuing, wide ranging and unforeseen examination.

If the role of self-authentication of print is acting in direct interdependence with its screen delivery there are other roles that follow including back-up, during any disruption to screen delivery, and mastering for rescanning for purposes not attended or to overcome other capture inadequacies.

On another note, Nicholson Baker did not advocate saving everything or “thousands of copies”. Nicholson Baker advocated saving one copy much as is also advocated in this report. What Baker did bemoan was transmitting print culture via inadequate and transient simulations.

Browsing for cultural analysis

Posted by Andy Keck at September 30, 2009 08:58 AM

Another reason for print archives not explicitly stated in the report is the browsing available in print that is difficulty to duplicate digitally. This tends to be more valuable in magazines and journals that are carefully shaped by editors. One can conduct valuable cultural analysis by browsing through a set of volumes, looking at the chosen subjects, images, and advertising to develop a portrait of a culture in a certain place and time. Digitization, for all its value in searching and access, does ultimately atomize the content of journals in ways that make it difficult to analyze the whole.

What NOT to Withdraw!

Posted by Christine L. Sundt at September 30, 2009 05:27 PM

Print materials are indeed cultural artifacts, often overlooked by librarians and others interested in economy of space. Typically not included in electronic journal formats are front matter (identifying the editor(s), board members, their affiliations, mission and aims of the journal (which do change), subscription information, addresses, etc.), plus indexes, and advertisements. Some electronic formats include this information but others do not. Without this context, a lot will be lost down the road. Also, as mentioned, browsing online is more likely to be a time-consuming and difficult process. OCR is not always effective in capturing all of the text, especially unusual or foreign words, and even HTML is not always reliable in searching because of how characters or words are coded. There's no substitute for seeing the object, its binding, the quality of the paper, and its other physical attributes while being able to see quickly whether it's what you want to pursue or not. De-accessioning will lead to shrinking libraries which in the end may become completely obsolete like phone booths.

print journal retention

Posted by kelly smith at September 30, 2009 07:55 PM

Retaining print will not automatically prevent obsolescence of libraries - having rows and rows of journals that are never touched is not a ticket to survival. In some cases, the advertisements can be helpful, but for most journals, these are not necessary, nor is subscription information and addresses. Indexes work better online. It is important for a few libraries (perhaps those who have agreed to maintain print for JSTOR) to preserve the print editions for preservation reasons. But it is not sustainable for libraries in the aggregate to continue to collect, catalog, house, and preserve so many multiple copies of these resources that are available online. The vast majority of users will use the online version. Our funds aren't infinite so we have to set realistic priorities.

Re: Christine L. Sundt

Posted by Heather at October 01, 2009 10:52 AM

First, I just want to point out that it's rarely the librarians themselves who want to get rid of the print copies. It's others who won't provide for more space and/or want to reduce space.

Second, this may be only true of the STM journals, which I work with, but almost ALL of them do have the front matter, board members, etc. Advertisements are missing, but most of the journals I work with don't have them in the first place. Sorry, when I started writing this, I missed that you said that some do include this. Oh well, still leaving this paragraph to make it clear to others.

Finally, you say that this will or could lead to libraries being obsolete. Do you think that the digitized versions are just freely available or easily accessible? It's my full-time job to manage the electronic resources for a small academic library. I won't go into a long description of how I spend my days, but they are very full and the job isn't something one can just step-into. (In other words, the MLS is still an appropriate requirement.) I have no doubt whatsoever that the library of tomorrow won't be identical to the library of yesterday, but the library as an institution will be around for a long time to come.

not that quickly, actually ...

Posted by Janis at October 01, 2009 05:45 PM

I remember going into the large library at my old graduate university, with plural formation in Latinate languages in mind, and staring down rows and rows of dusty, yellowed linguistics journals wondering where in gods' name to even start looking or hope that I'd found the most relevant references at all. I had no hope of finding anything at all "quickly," and the romantic smell of the paper foxing wasn't going to help.

This was in the early 90s, and I remember vividly standing there completely intimidated, and wishing with all my heart that I could just grep the blasted stacks. With the use of linking to rank results, I could have turned a truly time-consuming ordeal into a ten-second snap. Difficult? Hardly. Shuffling through all that paper took me multiple days, and I still did not find the blue-ribbon papers on my own. Nowdays, similar searches take an eyeblink.

I'll take online searching and browsing any day of the week.

Ithaka

Personal tools