An Examination of the Failure Rate and Content Equivalency of Electronic Surrogates and the Implications for Print Equivalent Preservation

Abstract

the terms of the Creative Commons-AttributionNoncommercial-Share Alike License 2.5 Canada (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ca/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the same or similar license to this one. AbstractObjective -This study sought to determine whether evidence indicates a need to preserve print equivalent journal collections. In addition, this research aimed to provide data on the failure rate of print equivalent materials for possible digitization to replace existing poor quality or defective electronic surrogates. Methods -The project compared the content of randomly selected journal titles, volumes, and issues from seven electronic journal archives and their print equivalents held at the University of Saskatchewan Library. The archives were obtained from five separate vendors representing humanities, social sciences, science, technology, and medicine. Data were collected on the frequency and types of failure of electronic surrogates, supplemental content missing from electronic surrogates, and frequency and types of failure of print equivalent materials.

A re-examination of online journal quality and investigation of the possible impact of poor electronic surrogate quality on researchers

“…This study investigated whether there continues to be evidence print equivalent serials need to be preserved for the short to medium term because of poor-quality electronic surrogates, as concluded in a previous study (Ladd, 2010). The central questions were:…”

“…Numerous researchers have investigated the differences between electronic surrogates and their print equivalents (Bracke & Martin, 2005;Campbell, 2003;Chen, 2005;Chrzastowski, 2003;Erdman, 2006;Hawkins & Shadle, 2004;Henebry et al, Safely, & George, 2002;Joseph, 2006Joseph, , 2012Joseph, , 2014Kalyan, 2002;Keller, 2005;Ladd, 2010;Martellini, 2000;McCann & Ravas, 2010;Robinson, 2010;Sprague & Chambers, 2000;Thohira et al, 2010;Weessies, 2012). These studies were most often conducted to determine if the electronic surrogates allowed libraries to cancel or withdraw print equivalent titles from their libraries.…”

“… images and figures (Bracke & Martin, 2005;Chen, 2005;Erdman, 2006;Henerby et al, 2002;Joseph 2006Joseph , 2012Joseph , 2014Keller, 2005;Ladd, 2010;McCann & Ravas, 2010;Robinson, 2010;Sprague & Chambers, 2000;Thohira et al, 2010),  illegible text and formulas (Keller, 2005;Ladd, 2010;Sprague & Chambers, 2000;Thohira et al, 2010),  missing content-figures, tables, missing pages, articles or issues (Bracke & Martin, 2005;Chen, 2005;Henebry et al, 2002;Joseph, 2006;Keller, 2005;Ladd, 2010;Sprague & Chambers, 2000;Thohira et al, 2010). Campbell (2003) found no substantial content missing for the titles reviewed.…”

“…Chrzastowski (2003) noted that while quality was still a concern, over a two-year period there had been only one problem for the chemistry and chemistry-related e-journals at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and that the vendor had quickly addressed the problem. Ladd (2010) noted that many of the quality related issues observed in the study could be resolved if the existing electronic surrogates were replaced with scans using higherresolution scanning technology and better quality control. As noted previously, in 2006 Elsevier began replacing poor-quality images on a case-by-case basis.…”

“…The strategy of removing print equivalent journals where an electronic surrogate exists is complicated by known quality issues with electronic surrogates (Bracke & Martin, 2005;Chen, 2005;Erdman, 2006;Hawkins & Shadle, 2004;Henebry, Safely, & George, 2002;Joseph, 2006Joseph, , 2012Joseph, , 2014Kalyan, 2002;Keller, 2005;Ladd, 2010;Martellini, 2000;McCann & Ravas, 2010;Robinson, 2010;Sprague & Chambers, 2000; Thohira, Chambers, & Sprague, 2010;Weessies, 2012), where there can be missing content (volume issues or pages), poor-quality images, and illegible text from poor-quality scans. Ladd (2010) concluded that the redigitization of failed PDF content using highresolution technology along with good quality control practices would eliminate many of the observed failures. Given the number of studies reporting quality issues with electronic surrogates, which can be corrected by redigitization, would publishers attempt to address this significant issue?…”