Take the E-Only Test

These two tools will help you decide if your library is ready for e-only journal subscriptions

By A. Ben Wagner -- Library Journal, 11/15/2005

Budgets, space limitations, and the ever-increasing demand for 24/7 access to material are driving many libraries toward electronic-only journal subscriptions. Much has been written and discussed about the benefits, costs, and risks of going “e-only.”

Librarians create lists of criteria all the time, but those making the decision need more than a mere checklist of items. This two-part test was developed to help you gauge the feasibility and perils of going e-only. Is it safe to abandon paper? Find out.

This starts off with two pertinent questions about whether the publisher offers an e-only option and, if so, whether there is at least a small discount associated with it. Answering “no” to either should be a “show stopper.” True, some may argue that even without a discount, going electronic automatically saves money because there is no binding cost and less storage is needed. That is just not enough: the risks of going e-only are simply not worth it if there is no immediate cost savings. In addition, some studies have already shown that e-subscriptions can often be more expensive to manage than print ones. Still, librarians are welcome to modify the Quick Screen form to fit their needs. The rest of this first part of the test focuses on the central issue of ownership of content and continued access to past content should a current subscription be given up at some point in the future.

These 13 criteria, each assigned weight (i.e., importance) via a points system, will help you determine how safe, iffy, or downright unsafe a move to an e-only subscription will be. Here, once again, you may want to readjust the numbers to reflect local priorities better. It is most important to consider long-term access to content and the degree of equivalence between the electronic and print versions of a given journal (does one really replace the other?). Many publishers have begun addressing continuing access issues, and a few now have 100 percent equivalence between their electronic and print versions, with news items, front matter, letters to the editor, etc., often deemed not worthy of electronic access.

The table is less complicated than it may appear. Simply consider each of the criteria as it pertains to a specific journal publisher and assign points in the appropriate column. Take, for example, cost savings. If you save 15 percent or more by switching to electronic, put three points in the Safe column. If your savings is between seven and 14 percent, put three points in the Iffy column. And so on.

Finally, this sheet, however useful in my own decision- making process, does not mirror an objective measurement tool. At the end of the day, there will always be the collection librarian making a judgment call. Good luck!