Without question, the ongoing transition from print to electronic periodicals has challenged librarians to rethink their strategies. While some effects of this change have been immediately apparent—greater breadth of material, easier access, exposure to new sources, publisher package deals, and open access—the broader outcomes on library operations remain unclear. Subscription pricing issues aside, the evidence thus far suggests that the transition to digital resources now underway will save money. In 2003, with colleagues Donald W. King (Univ. of Pittsburgh) and Ann Okerson (Yale), we set out to learn more about how the transition to electronic periodicals is affecting costs to libraries. (To read the full report, "Library Periodicals Expenses," visit www.clir.org/pubs/reports/publ27/ publ27.pdf.) With the cooperation of 11 academic libraries, we focused specifically on "nonsubscription" costs, everything from staff time and computer workstations to binding and the maintenance of space. Our findings show that, on a per title basis, the nonsubscription costs of e-periodicals are consistently and substantially lower than those of print periodicals.
展开▼
机译：毫无疑问，正在进行的从印刷期刊到电子期刊的过渡挑战了馆员重新考虑其策略。尽管这种变化的某些效果已经显而易见，例如，材料的广度更大，访问更方便，接触新资源，出版商打包交易和开放获取，但图书馆运作的更广泛结果仍然不清楚。除了订阅价格问题外，迄今为止的证据表明，目前正在进行的向数字资源的过渡将节省资金。 2003年，我们与Donald W. King（匹兹堡大学）和Ann Okerson（耶鲁）的同事一起，开始更多地了解向电子期刊的过渡如何影响图书馆的成本。 （要阅读完整的报告“图书馆期刊费用”，请访问www.clir.org/pubs/reports/publ27/ publ27.pdf。）在11个高校图书馆的合作下，我们专门致力于“非订阅”成本，其中包括人员时间与计算机工作站绑定并维护空间。我们的研究结果表明，就每个书名而言，电子期刊的非订阅成本始终且大大低于印刷期刊的非订阅成本。
展开▼
