Search

Purpose – This study aims to highlight practical considerations to be made when choosing an eBook package for an institution. Many academic libraries purchase eBooks bundled in packages, either as a time- or cost-saving measure or to build a new subject collection. Design/methodology/approach – The authors searched the Web sites of six major publishers for information on eBook packages, including subject coverage, digital rights management restrictions and usage allowances. The analysis also includes a potential overlap between related subject collections and the ability to purchase titles individually. Findings – Usage allowances, digital rights management restrictions and purchasing options vary considerably from publisher to publisher. There was title overlap between related subject packages found in some publishers. In response to user preferences and needs, many publishers are loosening restrictions on their eBook content, which make purchasing packages a more attractive option for libraries. Originality/value – The landscape of eBook publishing is rapidly changing, which can complicate purchasing decisions. The detailed comparison provided by this study can be used to assist collections developers in making purchasing decisions best suited to their library and avoiding pitfalls such as duplicate purchases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose - The aim of this study is to compare print and e-book use for identical titles in the e-Duke Scholarly Collection (e-DSC) from 2011 to 2013 to determine format preference for a discrete collection of titles in humanities and social sciences. Design/methodology/approach - Use statistics for the e-DSC were downloaded from the e-book platform by title and call number to determine use by title and subject. Circulation statistics were culled from the library's integrated library system for the same titles to compare e-book use to that of the same print title. Findings - Although e-books had a high number of titles with use as a per cent of the collection, examination of substantive use shows a slight preference for print. While 73 per cent of the e-books garnered enough interest to click on them, only 12 per cent had substantive use. Research limitations/implications - The e-DSC changed platforms in December 2013. The new platform does not require users to create an account to download e-book sections and digital rights management limitations have been removed. The same examination of collection use in 2.5 years on the new platform will provide an interesting comparison on the function of platform on e-book use. Originality/value - The comparison of identical print and e-titles is less studied and includes the examination of "substantive use" in comparing print to e-book use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Literature loss refers to the declining ability of US libraries to maintain a comprehensive book collection in the face of extraordinary growth in publications and price inflation. Another possible explanation of literature loss might be that libraries might be shifting the emphasis from collecting books to collecting alternative formats such as non-print materials, or depending more on access to materials rather than ownership. This study attempted to: identify the collection patterns for print ( books) and non-print [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discusses the two basic channels of book procurement - the domestic market and imports (either directly or through local bookdealers). The former is the most popular method at present. Acquisition through this method is almost totally directed and controlled by availability of materials in the market, leaving only a limited choice for systematic collection building. Imports through the local bookdealer, favoured by special libraries in the mid-1950s and 1960s, is no more employed owing to red-tapism on the part of the dealer. The direct import system, which has proven beneficial in many respects for university libraries, has also gradually been given up. The reasons include: an uncertain import policy, import restrictions and trade embargoes against some countries because of political and ideological reasons, the fluctuating rate of the Pakistani rupee, hurdles in customs clearance, and, above all, the departure of competent personnel conversant with this kind of work to positions in OPEC countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines reviewing tendencies in CHOICE, Journal of American History, and American Historical Review in the early 1990s in order to compare their strengths and weaknesses. Among the factors assessed were the number of titles reviewed by each, the degree of overlap for 1,017 different titles that were reviewed in these journals, subject coverage in the field of American history, and timeliness. The study found that JAH reviewed 50 percent more titles than the other two journals in 1991 and had the best coverage for most subject categories in American history. AHR reviewed the fewest books in most categories and contained the least number of unique titles. Although numbers of titles reviewed in each category differed, percentage of coverage was similar within most categories in all three journals. However, several categories revealed some divergence in coverage. Reviews in CHOICE preceded reviews of the same titles in JAH and AHR by 9.3 months and 10.9 months, respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]