Borrelli.indd


       

           

 

 

    

        
    

      
    

    
        

      
     

      

      

     

 

    

      

    

     
    

    
     
      

     

The Impact of Electronic Journals on 
Use of Print in Geology 

Steve Borrelli, Betty Galbraith, and Eileen E. Brady 

This study examines the use of geology journals at Washington State 
University (WSU), before and after electronic access was provided, to 
determine if the use of the print collection increased as in the previous 
studiesatWSU of three other science disciplines.Thenumberand source 
of articles cited by WSU geologists from 1998 to 2004 is also examined 
to determine the impact of electronic access on citation patterns. In light 
of inflation and package deals, librarians need to understand how faculty 
use journals. This analysis will assist librarians in better understanding 
journal usage to inform future serial purchasing decisions. 

previous study was pub-
lished in 2004 that evaluated 
the impact of the availability 
of electronic journals (e-jour-

nals) on the use of print journals in Chem-
istry, Mechanical and Materials Engineer-
ing (MME), and Physics collections in the 
Owen Science and Engineering Library 
(Owen), Washington State University.1 
The study revealed that the use of all three 
collections increased with the advent of 
electronic access (e-access) to many of the 
titles. When comparing usage in 1998, 
when there was no e-access, to usage in 
2001, the statistics showed that overall ini-
tial use of the print collections increased 
a er e-access was added. A er 2001, print 
use went into a steady decline. 

Geologists have the reputation of being 
tied to the use of traditional resources as 
indicated by Julie Hallmark,2 who wrote, 
“geologists...in contrast to chemists and 

other scientists, use older literature and 
international publications to a greater 
extent. Thus, e-journals play a lesser role 
in their research.” To determine if this 
was true at WSU, the authors decided to 
analyze the data available for the years 
1998 through 2004 to determine if there 
was an adherence to print or if geologists 
followed the pa ern demonstrated by 
their colleagues in Chemistry, Engineer-
ing, and Physics. 

Context 
Washington State University is a land-
grant institution with eleven libraries 
on four campuses statewide. The Owen 
Library on the Pullman campus provides 
support to four thousand faculty and 
students with majors in the hard sciences, 
agriculture, and engineering as well as 
general undergraduate students in other 
majors. 

Steve Borrelli is a Librarian 2, Library Instruction, in Holland Library at Washington State University, 
Pullman; Be y Galbraith is a Librarian 3, Reference Department, in Owen Science & Engineering Library 
at Washington State University, Pullman; and Eileen E. Brady is a Librarian 3, Manager, Owen Preserva-
tion and Access, and Security, in Owen Science & Engineering Library at Washington State University, 
Pullman; e-mail: sborrelli@wsu.edu, be yg@wsu.edu, brady@wsu.edu. 

26 

mailto:brady@wsu.edu
mailto:be�yg@wsu.edu
mailto:sborrelli@wsu.edu


       

     
      

    

     

      
   

    
     

       
        

     

       
     

     
    

      

      

     
      

      
      

    

   

     
        
       
      

        
      

       
      

        
       

        
       

        
       

     
     

      
      

       

     
     

 

      

    
     

 

 

   

      
        

       

      

The Impact of Electronic Journals on Use of Print in Geology 27 

In this time of journal inflation and big 
deal packages, librarians need to under-
stand how researchers are using journals. 
This analysis will assist librarians in be er 
understanding journal usage with the 
goal of informing future serial purchas-
ing decisions. 

Questions 
The previous WSU study revealed that 
the use of the print collection increased 
with the advent of e-journal access. These 
findings contradicted such previously 
published findings as Goodman’s3 that 
“users will use anything in electronic for-
mat, even items of no apparent value, that 
would not be used in print, and would not 
be requested on interlibrary loan.” The 
authors wished to determine if the trend 
they had previously observed in Chem-
istry, MME, and Physics at WSU would 
hold for geology or if the pa erns similar 
to those referred to by Goodman and also 
seen by DeGroote and Dorsch,4 Morse 
and Clintworth,5 and Rogers6 at other 
institutions would assert themselves. Did 
Geology users change over to the e-format 
in 2002 as did those in Chemistry, MME, 
and Physics? To add to understanding use 
of the collection, the authors decided to 
analyze the citation pa erns of geology 
faculty to determine if they demonstrated 
title-loyalty or if they were choosing titles 
found primarily in e-format. 

Methodology 
The authors compared the use of geology 
titles in 1998, before Owen had e-journals, 
to the use of the same titles in the years 
2000–2004, when e-journals were avail-
able to WSU users and use statistics were 
available from publishers. Embargoed 
titles (those with time-delayed e-access) 
were not an issue; there were none in the 
subject area of the study. 

Continuous use statistics for print jour-
nals had been kept in Owen between 1993 
and early 2006.7 Each reshelving of a cur-
rent or bound volume, whether checked 
out or used in-house, counted as one use. 
Signs posted throughout the library asked 

patrons not to reshelve items because a 
journal use study was being conducted. 
This had been going on so long that fac-
ulty had learned that reshelving of issues 
instead of leaving them out to be counted 
could result in the journal being cancelled 
in the next round of cancellations. It should 
be noted that Oliver Obst8 calculates that 
this method underestimates actual usage 
by 15 to 33 percent. 

One access to a full-text article counted 
as one use for e-journals. E-journal use 
statistics are added to the database, in a 
separate field, as they become available. 
In this way, librarians can track changes 
in usage patterns for each title over a 
multiyear period. Here there also may be 
a problem of inflated numbers. According 
to Obst, redundant multiple e-accesses of 
between 20 and 28.2 percent have been 
reported. Instead of printing articles for 
future use, patrons may be going back 
to the Web site to view the full text time 
after time. While anecdotal evidence 
based on comments from our patrons 
suggests that Obst is correct, the authors 
do not have sufficient data necessary to 
alter our method of reporting uses. A full 
explanation of the journal use database 
and statistics collection process is avail-
able in Galbraith’s 9 2002 article “Journal 
Retention Decisions Incorporating Use-
Statistics as a Measure of Value.” 

A total of 110 geology journals were 
evaluated in this study. For a journal to be 
included in the study for any given year, 
the WSU Libraries had to have an active 
subscription in either print or e-format. 
Titles that did not have an active subscrip-
tion in a given year were subtracted from 
the base 110. Between 1998 and 2001, the 
number of geology titles in the Owen 
collection increased 41.9 percent due to 
package purchases and consortial agree-
ments. (See figure 1.) 

FIGURE 1 
Total Number of Journals by Year 
1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 
74 96 105 106 110 110 



 

        

    

       

       

      

    

   
     

      
       

 
      

     
   

    
   

     
    

  
   

    
   

    

      

      
       

      
        

     

       
      

      
     

      
     

     
      

 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

28 College & Research Libraries January 2009 

FIGURE 2 
Total Geology Journals Subscribed by Year and Method of Access 

0.00 

20.00 

40.00 

60.00 

80.00 

1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

Year 

N
u
m
b
e
r 
o
f

J
o
u
rn
a
ls

 

Journals 
with print-
only access 

Journals 
with 
electronic-
only access 

Journals 
with access 
in both 
formats 

By 2004, the last year of the study, the 
overall gain in number of titles was 67 per-
cent. However, due to the shi ing nature 
of packages and consortial agreements, 
the journal titles in the study varied from 
year to year until the number of titles 
began to stabilize in 2003. 

Very li le of this change was due to 
purchasing titles that were individually 
selected by librarians; most of the fluc-
tuation came as a result of consortial and 
package purchases. During this period, 
due to budget cuts, the library cancelled 
long-standing geology titles. Low-use 
titles were targeted. The cancellations did 
not impact overall use of journals, as the 
data show use continued to increase. (See 
figure 3.) At times the cancelled titles were 
later picked up in consortial purchases. 
The titles changed o en as the content of 
package deals changed. 

For the citation analysis, the authors 
mined data from Science Citation Index and 
the publication lists of the Department 
of Geology. WSU provided 
online access to GeoRef, the 
main geology database, for 
all the years of this study. 
In 2001 the libraries also 
instituted ExLibris’ SFX link 
resolver so ware. The library 
expected that the ease of 
getting to e-journals from 
GeoRef via SFX would im-
pact journal use and citation 
pa erns. Unfortunately, due 
to failure of the statistics re-
porting so ware, the library 

FIGURE 3 
Uses per Year 

0 
1000 
2000 
3000 
4000 
5000 
6000 
7000 
8000 

1 2 2 2 2 29
98 00

0
00
1
00
2
00
3
00
4 

Year 

N
u
m
b
e
r 
o
f 
U
s
e
s

Print uses 
per year 

Electronic 
uses per 
year 

Total uses 
per year 

does not have statistics that would en-
able the authors to support or refute this 
expectation. 

Results and Discussion 
For this study the authors looked at 

titles in each of the format categories. (See 
figure 2.) The number of print journals 
peaked in 2001, as did the number of jour-
nals available in both formats. Interest-
ingly, the number of journals with print-
only access bo omed out in 2002 and then 
began to increase in number again. When 
packages changed or ceased, or a package 
subscription was dropped, the library lost 
access to electronic titles and more titles 
reverted to print-only, as can be seen in 
the “access in both formats” row. 

The year 2001–2002 can be identified as 
the year that online offerings transitioned 
from the minority to the majority of the 
geology journal collection. The number of 
titles available in both print and e-formats 
dropped consistently a er 2001. 



      
      

      

     

     
      

     

       

      

     

        

       

        
     

        
    

      
     

     
      

    

       
     

        

    

 

    
    

 
      

    
     

       

The Impact of Electronic Journals on Use of Print in Geology 29 

2002 was the first year a preference for 
online access was reflected in a planned 
effort by WSU Libraries to cancel print 
journals in favor of online access. This 
was primarily the result of a need to stay 
within budget while avoiding a large cut 
in the number of journals available to 
WSU users. 

A consortial purchase was not renewed 
for 2004, resulting in a reduction in the 
number of titles with e-access. The per-
centage of print journals subscribed to 
during the study period did not drop 
below 50 percent because WSU did not 
cancel print when archival rights were 
unavailable. 

The first step in the study was to 
look at the total usage of all journals in 
each format. (See figure 3.) Similar to 
the findings of previous WSU studies of 
Chemistry, MME, and Physics, the use 
of the print journals increased a er the 
e-format was introduced. Although total 
use of the print format dropped in 2001, 
it still was higher than use in 1998. By 
2002, print use dropped below the 1998 
level and continued to drop in each study 
year therea er. E-formats rapidly gained 
in use, until 2004 when the use dropped 
three percent. (See figure 3.) 

The drop of usage in both formats in 
2004 may be a ributed to the loss of three 
faculty members in the department, which 
was 20 percent of the faculty at that time. 
At the same time, there were 33 percent 

fewer declared undergraduate majors in 
geology in 2004 than in 2003. A case study 
conducted by Ochola and Peterson-Lugo10 
found that in “a non-major lower level 
course, the students heavily used Internet 
resources (60% of their citations), while 
their use of library print and electronic 
resources was minimal.” On the other 
hand, “the students in the upper level 
GEO 3435 class produced bibliographies 
in which 86% of the research came from 
traditional library resources.” If Ochola 
and Peterson-Lugo’s conclusion is correct, 
the relatively small drop in e-use in 2004 
may be explained by undergraduates us-
ing the Internet instead of e-journals. 

There was an increase in the use of 
geology serials over the seven-year period 
of study. This may be explained in part by 
the increase in computer literacy of the 
incoming student population. In addi-
tion, newly hired faculty members were 
younger and probably more comfortable 
with technology. Sathe et al11 found, for 
example, “that certain categories of pa-
trons, most notably faculty, prefer print 
journals over electronic, whereas most 
(medical) residents and fellows prefer 
electronic journals.” 

A look at titles that had both print and 
e-access reveals that use of print increased 
immediately after the introduction of 
the electronic version, then slowly de-
clined each year therea er. It should be 
noted that use of the print version never 

FIGURE 4 
Percentage of Uses per Year by Format Accessed 

0.00% 

20.00% 

40.00% 

60.00% 

80.00% 

100.00% 

P
e
rc
e
n
ta
g
e
 o
f 
U
s
e
s

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

Year 

Percentage of print 
uses per year 

Percentage of 
electronic uses per 
year 



 

     
     

       

      

 

       

       
     

      
      

 

         

        

       

 

       

      

       

        

     

     
      

        

     
      

       
         

       
       

     
     

     
      

  
  

  
  

  
  
  

19
98
*–
20
00 

20
00
–2
00
1 

20
00
–2
00
2 

20
00
–2
00
3 

20
00
–2
00
4 

30 College & Research Libraries January 2009 

FIGURE 5
	
Evaluation of Individual Titles’ Print Use
	

80%
 
60%
 

P
e
rc
e
n
ta
g
e




Percentage of titles 
that increased in 
use 

Percentage of titles 
that decreased in 
use 

Percentage of titles 
that remained the 
same in use 

40%
 
20%
 
0%
 

Year
 

ceased. Over the years there is a confus-
ing pa ern of increased and decreased 
use of individual print-only titles. The 
authors could find no factor to account 
for this behavior. Yet those titles that were 
print-only throughout the period of the 
study maintained 70 percent of their year 
2000 use level. Print-only title use had 
dropped, but not as precipitously as pre-
dicted by DeGroote and Dorsch,12 Morse 
and Clintworth,13 and Rogers.14 

A perusal of the percentage of total use 
that each format represents may make it 
easier to see the change. (See figure 4.) 
By 2002, geology users demonstrated a 
clear preference for e-format. One ques-
tion is, why did it take the faculty so long 
to adopt e-formats? Anecdotal evidence 
from the halls of library association meet-
ings suggests that geologists are less likely 
to accept new formats. Hallmark’s15 writ-
ings also support this view. 

Print use statistics showed a slow de-
cline in print uses, but that is not the entire 
picture. (See figure 5.) When changes in 
print use are looked at title by title, a 
slightly different pa ern emerges. Many 
titles exhibited an increase in use or a 
drop in use from year to year. Between 
1998 and 2000, and again in 2000–2001, 
49 percent of the print titles showed an 
increase in use and 49 percent of the titles 
showed a decrease in use, while 2 percent 
remained unchanged. Chemistry, MME, 

and Physics titles exhibited a strong in-
crease in print use of journals that were 
also available electronically. For geology, 
whether the title had an e-version or not 
had no effect. 

Between 2001 and 2002, only 37 percent 
of the print titles had increases in use. By 
2003, only 32 percent increased in use over 
2002. By 2004, the final year of the study, 
there was an increase for 29 percent of the 
titles. Availability of an e-version made 
no difference which titles increased or 
decreased. At the same time, use of print 
titles in Chemistry increased 11 percent, 
MME increased 24 percent, and Phys-
ics increased 9 percent, for an average 
increase, for all three subject collections, 
of 14 percent between 2001 and 2003. The 
SFX link resolver had been in operation 
since fall 2001 and may have been a factor 
in the increase in use of print titles. 

Although use of individual titles in-
creased each year, no title increased in 
use every year. All titles increased in print 
use in at least two of the years. Some titles 
increased in as many as four individual 
years. In most cases, titles did not increase 
in use in consecutive years. A study of 
the individual titles that increased and 
decreased over the years also revealed 
no pa ern related to e-format availability. 
Therefore, increase in use of an individual 
print journal was most likely related to 
some other feature such as content, qual-

http:Rogers.14


    
      

    

    
   

    

      
    

      
    

      
     

      
     

    

     

      

       

      

     
     

      
      

   
    

     

     
      

 
    

       
      
         

         
        

        
        
         

       
      

        
         
       

       
     

     
        
       

       
        

       

    
      

     
 

 

      
     

     
     

The Impact of Electronic Journals on Use of Print in Geology 31 

ity of photographs and graphics, classes 
requiring students to investigate contents 
of particular titles, or perhaps ease of 
browsing back issues. 

Were the new-to-WSU e-journals used? 
Most of the new e-titles acquired in pack-
ages and consortial deals made li le im-
pact on usage data. However, there were 
three new e-journals that consistently 
demonstrated impressive use. Obviously 
they are titles to which WSU should have 
been subscribing earlier (Applied Geo-
chemistry, Geomorphology, and Quaternary 
Science Reviews). 

Citation Analysis 
The authors were interested to see if 
citation analysis could provide insight 
into how the geologists were using their 
journals. According to Sathe et al,16 “...our 
data regarding patrons’ preference for 
and use of electronic journals for printing 
articles confirms the idea that patrons 
may limit their research to easily available 
electronic journals simply because of their 
convenience and regardless of whether 
other sources would be er suit their in-
formation needs.” At WSU a comparison 
was made of journals cited in 1998 and 
2004. Geology faculty cited 46 percent 
more articles in 2004 than in 1998. Of the 
771 journals cited, only 8 percent, or 61 
journals, were in the WSU geology collec-
tion. Faculty members were using a large 
number of journals that were outside the 
sample or that WSU did not own. The 61 
journals accounted for 37 percent of the 
total citations in 1998 and 38 percent of 
the total citations in 2004. The faculty was 
using our collection consistently. 

Of the titles that were print-only in 
both years, 41 percent decreased in cita-
tion level, while 41 percent increased and 
18 percent remained the same. Faculty 
members were not abandoning titles just 
because they were not available in e-
format. Among the 710 titles cited that 
were not in the WSU geology collection 
were journals from such subject fields as 
agriculture, biology, chemistry, microbiol-
ogy, pharmacology, physics, and zoology. 

Together this indicates a trend toward 
increased interdisciplinary research and 
that, with the adoption of electronic 
access, the breadth of titles being cited 
increased tremendously. 

Of the WSU titles owned in dual for-
mat, 20 percent decreased in the number 
of times they were cited. Eighty percent 
either increased in citations or remained 
steady. This was a 21 percent higher gain 
than print-only titles, suggesting that 
electronically available titles had gained 
acceptance among geology faculty. 

The study also looked at which titles 
were most frequently cited by WSU geolo-
gists. Of the 38 titles that were cited ten 
or more times in 1998, 79 percent of them 
continued to be cited ten or more times 
in 2004. All those that dropped in citation 
level had e-formats. In 2004, 59 titles were 
cited ten or more times. This is an increase 
of 55 percent over 1998. Twenty-nine titles 
increased to this citation level when com-
pared to 1998. One-fi h of those titles that 
rose to this level of citation in 2004 were 
print only. This suggests that format was 
not the driving force for Geology patrons. 
This contradicted Tenopir’s17 report of li-
brarians’suppositions that “when [patrons] 
begin to rely on electronic full texts, they 
o en don’t bother to check print journal 
stacks” and that “most patrons will select 
the digital versions, even if a particular title 
or article is not best for their needs.” 

Conclusions 
As expected, after geology e-journals 
became established, use of e-titles far out-
stripped the use of print titles. This does 
not mean, however, that print became 
obsolete, as indicated by Goodman18 and 
Sathe et al.19 As with the previous WSU 
studies of Chemistry, MME, and Physics, 
initially the use of the print collection 
increased with the advent of e-journal 
access. The study shows that the changes 
in the use of individual titles are research 
driven. By 2001, geology users were 
using print and e-formats equally. This 
differs from the previous WSU study in 
which, by 2001, Chemistry uses of print 



 

      

 
      

     

     
 

     
       

      

      
       

        
        
       
       

      
        

      
      

 
       

    

      

       

      
      

      
     

    

       

      
    

     

    
      

     

      

      

 
    

    
     

    

      
    

   
    

             
 

32 College & Research Libraries January 2009 

had dropped to 25 percent, MME had 
dropped to 40 percent, and Physics had 
dropped to 33 percent. 

Geology print use in 2002 was virtually 
the same as that of 1998, but electronic 
usage had increased dramatically to be-
come the dominant format. Use data for 
2003 shows that print use declined to 23 
percent. However, the second WSU study 
conducted by Brady et al 20 of Chemistry, 
MME, and Physics showed more dra-
matic drops in print use by 2003, with 
Chemistry at 5 percent, MME at 13 per-
cent, and Physics at 4 percent. Use of the 
geology print collection did not decline as 
dramatically over the same period. 

As geology users became more familiar 
and comfortable with e-access, there was an 
increase in the total citations in the papers 
they authored. Total use of the collection in 
2004 increased 295.5 percent over 1998 use, 
while the number of citations increased 46 
percent. The method of library research 
changed, which led to an overall increase in 
the number of citations, individual articles, 
and titles appearing in their publications. 

All WSU geology titles were indexed 
in GeoRef both before and throughout the 
study period. In the year 2001 our link 
resolver became truly functional. This 
combination increased visibility of both 
print and e-formats in the library’s collec-
tion and made direct access to electronic 
titles easier. If a title was not available 
electronically, the link resolver permi ed 
the patron to search the online catalog 
to determine if WSU owned the print 
version. This was a major contributor to 
the increased use of the collection. When 
a journal was not owned by WSU, plac-
ing an interlibrary loan request was also 
facilitated through the SFX link resolver. 
This contributed to the large percentage of 
geologist-cited journals that WSU did not 
own or were outside the study sample. 

Citation analysis showed that the 
majority of titles WSU faculty members 

cited were not in the WSU geology collec-
tion. Eight percent of the titles (61 titles) 
cited were in the WSU geology collec-
tion, and these 8 percent accounted for 
over one-third of the citations. These 61 
titles increased or decreased in citation 
level with no relationship to the format 
available. WSU Geology faculty exhibited 
title-loyalty by citing in 2004 the same 
titles that were cited most o en in 1998. 
The faculty members were using titles 
that suited their research needs, not just 
those titles available electronically. 

The titles included in the geology col-
lection for any given year are impacted 
by large or “big deal” package purchases. 
Access to an increased number of titles 
through package deals should not neces-
sarily influence subject specialists in sup-
porting purchases. If the titles included in 
the big package deals are not those being 
used by faculty they may not be worth 
the expense or the support of the subject 
specialists. A periodic review of faculty 
citation pa erns could have significant 
impact on purchasing decisions. How-
ever, if providing an increased breadth 
of offerings is a deciding factor, these big 
deals, with increased title selection, may 
be a favorable option and more likely to 
be supported by subject specialists. 

Future Directions for Research 
Additional research needs to be under-
taken to determine how journal cancella-
tion affects interlibrary loan. The authors 
also wonder if different disciplinary 
“citation half lives” affect print use. An 
analysis of the impact of research-inten-
sive courses on collection use should yield 
useful information for future collection 
cancellation decisions. The authors also 
speculate that personal subscriptions to 
journals, especially professional society 
publications, may have increased since 
1998, which would impact the use level 
of the library’s collections. 

Notes 

1. Tammy R. Siebenberg, Be y Galbraith, and Eileen E. Brady, “Print Versus Electronic Journal 
Use in Three Sci/Tech Disciplines: What’s Going on Here?” College and Research Libraries 65, no. 5 



  
 

  

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

            
 

   

 
 
 

 
 
 
  

 
 
 

 

The Impact of Electronic Journals on Use of Print in Geology 33 

(Sept. 2004): 427–38. 
2. Julie Hallmark, “Access and Retrieval of Recent Journal Articles: A Comparative Study of 

Chemists and Geoscientists,” Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship (Summer 2004). Avail-
able online at h p://istl.org/04-summer/article1.html. 

3. David Goodman, “A Year Without Print at Princeton, and What We Plan Next,” Learned 
Publishing 15, no. 1 (Janu. 2002): 43–50. 

4. Sandra L. Degroote and Josephine L. Dorsch, “Online Journals: Impact on Print Journal 
Usage,” Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 84, no. 4 (Oct. 2001): 372–78. 

5. David H. Morse and William A. Clintworth, “Comparing Pa erns of Print and Electronic 
Journal Use in an Academic Health Science Library,” Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship 
(Fall 2000). Available online at www.library.ucsb.edu/istl/00-fall/refereed.html. 

6. Sally A. Rogers, “Electronic Journal Usage at Ohio State University,” College & Research 
Libraries 62, no. 1 (Jan. 2001): 25–34. 

7. The practice was reinstituted for all journals with active paper subscriptions a er a few 
months when a new procedure was developed. 

8. Oliver Obst, “Pa erns and Costs of Printed and Online Journal Usage,” Health Information 
and Libraries Journal 20, no. 1 (Mar. 2003): 22–32. 

9. Be y Galbraith, “Journal Retention Decisions Incorporating Use-Statistics as a Measure 
of Value,” Collection Management 27, no. 1 (2002): 79–90. 

10. John N Ochola and Billie R. Peterson-Lugo, “Collaboration Between the Library and 
Classroom Faculty in the Assessment of Student Research Needs: A Case-Study with Geology 
Undergraduates,” Collection Management 28, no. 4 (2003): 79–94. 

11. Nila A Sathe, Jennifer L. Grady, and Nunzia B. Giuse, “Print Versus Electronic Journals: A 
Preliminary Investigation into the Effect of Journal Format on Research Processes,” Journal of the 
Medical Library Association 90, no. 2 (2002): 235–43. 

12. DeGroote and Dorsch, “Online Journals.” 
13. Morse and Clintworth, “Comparing Pa erns of Print and Electronic Journal Use in an 

Academic Health Science Library.” 
14. Rogers, “Electronic Journal Usage at Ohio State University.” 
15. Hallmark, “Access and Retrieval of Recent Journal Articles.” 
16. Sathe, Grady, and Giuse, “Print Versus Electronic Journals.” 
17. Carol Tenopir, “Should We Cancel Print?” Library Journal 124, no. 14 (Sept. 1, 1999): 138, 

142. 
18. Goodman, “A Year Without Print at Princeton, and What We Plan Next.” 
19. Sathe, Grady, and Giuse, “Print Versus Electronic Journals.” 
20. Eileen E. Brady, Sarah K. McCord, and Be y Galbraith, “Print versus Electronic Journal 

Use in Three Sci/Tech Disciplines: The Cultural Shi  in Process,” College and Research Libraries 67, 
no. 4 (July 2006): 354–63. 

www.library.ucsb.edu/istl/00-fall/refereed.html