Microform–Not extinct yet: Results of a long-term microform use study in the digital age

References

• Association of Research Libraries (2008). ARL statistics. Retrieved from. http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/08tables.xls (Tab ctot3).
   Google Scholar
• Baker, N. (2001). Double fold: Libraries and the assault on paper. New York: Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Bourke, T. A. (1994). The putative dilemma of too many analytical bibliographic records for microform sets in the online catalog: Or, does serendipity ever lead to scholarship? Microform Review, 23 (2), 56–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/mfir.1994.23.2.56.
   Google Scholar
• Bracke, M. S., & Martin, J. (2005). Developing criteria for the withdrawal of print content available online. Collection Building, 24 (2), 61–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01604950510592670.
   Google Scholar
• Breslawski, R. (2005). Microfilm media and technology in a digital world. Microform and Imaging Review, 34 (4), 175–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/mfir.2005.175.
   Google Scholar
• Brooks, S. (2001). Integration of information resources and collection development strategy. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27 (4), 316–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0099-1333(01)00218-X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butkovitch, N. J. (1996). Use studies: A selective review. Library Resources & Technical Services, 40 (4), 359–368.
   Google Scholar
• Canepi, K. (2003). Microfilm serial backfiles: Are they still cost effective? Serials Review, 29 (4), 282–286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.serrev.2003.09.003.
   Google Scholar
• Carey, R., Simonsen, L., & Vogh, B. S. (2009). Low-cost method of removing periodical duplicates using a collection growth formula at a medium-sized academic library. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 33, 119–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcats.2009.08.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheney, D. (2010). Dinosaurs in a Jetson world: A dozen ways to revitalize your microforms collection. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 34, 66–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcats.2010.05.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheney, D., Knapp, J., Alan, R., & Czapla, P. (2006). Convergence in the library's news room: Enhancing news collections and services in academic libraries. College and Research Libraries, 67 (5), 395–417.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chrzastowski, T. E., & Olesko, B. M. (1997). Chemistry journal use and cost: Results of a longitudinal study. Library Resources & Technical Services, 41 (2), 101–111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davey, D. L. (2009). Uncovering hidden collections of alternative serials on microfilm. The Serials Librarian, 57 (3), 223–232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03615260902876912.
   Google Scholar
• Duff, W. M., & Cherry, J. M. (2000). Use of historical documents in a digital world: Comparisons with original materials and microfiche. Information Research, 6 (1). Retrieved from http://www.informationr.net/ir/6-1/paper86.html.
   Google Scholar
• Duffy, P., & Weisbrod, E. J. (1995). More thoughts on bibliographic access and microformat records. Microform Review, 24 (2), 55–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/mfir.1995.24.2.55.
   Google Scholar
• El-Sherbini, M. (2007). Open WorldCat and its impact on academic libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33 (1), 56–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2006.08.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freeland, M., & Bailey, M. (2008). Print newspapers: Are they still being used in academic and research libraries? The Serials Librarian, 55 (1/2), 210–226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03615260801970881.
   Google Scholar
• Gabriel, M., & Flesner, M. (1990). Surprising responses on the issue of convenience of use: A user survey of microforms in one academic library. Microform Review, 19 (2), 69–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/mfir.1990.19.2.69.
   Google Scholar
• Gammon, J. A., & O'Connor, P. (1996). An analysis of the results of two periodical use studies: How usage in the 1990s compares to usage in the 1970s. Serials Review, 22 (4), 35–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0098-7913(96)90073-8.
   Google Scholar
• Holloway, C., & Sutton, E. D. (1990). A comparative study of microform use in a research library: The use study as a management tool. Microform Review, 19 (2), 61–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/mfir.1990.19.2.61.
   Google Scholar
• Howard, C., Winer, H. K., & Wagner, L. (1999). Tour of preservation resources spotlights flexibility. OCLC Newsletter, 238, 25–30.
   Google Scholar
• Joachim, M. D. (1989). Problems in the cataloging of large microform sets or, learning to expect the unexpected. Microform Review, 18 (2), 77–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/mfir.1989.18.2.77.
   Google Scholar
• Karunanayake, C. (2003). Journal use study in a small hospital library: Methodology and issues. Journal of Hospital Librarianship, 3 (3), 63–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/j186v03n03_06.
   Google Scholar
• Keogh, P. (2012). Decisions in resource management: The case of microforms. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 36 (1–2), 8–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcats.2011.04.003.
   Google Scholar
• Knowlton, S. A., Diaz, M., Jashari, K., Ratliff, K. M., & Smith, K.P (2007). Microforms in a linked world: Using OPACs and other web applications to improve access to content in microform. Microform & Imaging Review, 36 (3), 121–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/mfir.2007.121.
   Google Scholar
• Library of Congress, Preservation Directorate. (n.d.) Collection care: Preserving newspapers. Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20121025225539/ http://www.loc.gov/preservation/care/newspap.html.
   Google Scholar
• Linden, J. (2010). Do we need all these microforms … right here? DttP: Documents to the People, 38 (3), 27–30.
   Google Scholar
• Maher, W. J., & Shearer, B. F. (1979). Undergraduate use patterns of newspapers on microfilm. College and Research Libraries, 40 (3), 254–260.
   Google Scholar
• Manzo, B. (1997). Microform management in academic libraries. Microform & Imaging Review, 26 (2), 73–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/mfir.1997.26.2.73.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, S. (2007). EEBO, microfilm, and Umberto Eco: Historical lessons and future directions for building electronic collections. Microform & Imaging Review, 36 (4), 159–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/mfir.2007.159.
   Google Scholar
• McBride, R. C., & Behm, K. (2003). A journal usage study in an academic library: Evaluation of selected criteria. The Serials Librarian, 45 (3), 23–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J123v45n03_03.
   Google Scholar
• McIntosh, M. C. (1987). Sabbatical report: Results of a survey of library microforms facilities. Microform Review, 16 (1), 40–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/mfir.1987.16.1.40.
   Google Scholar
• McKinzie, S. (2005). Troubling choices: Full-text access and the old hard copy back runs. Against The Grain, 17 (1), 60–61.
   Google Scholar
• Mieczkowska, S., & Pryor, K. (2002). Digitized newspapers at Norfolk and Norwich Millennium Library. Collection Building, 21 (4), 155–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01604950210447395.
   Google Scholar
• Milne, D., & Tiffany, B. (1991). A cost-per-use method for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of serials: A detailed discussion of methodology. Serials Review, 17 (2), 7–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0098-7913(91)90036-I.
   Google Scholar
• Monopoli, M., Nicholas, D., Georgiou, P., & Korfiati, M. (2002). A user-oriented evaluation of digital libraries: Case study the “electronic journals” service of the library and information service of the University Of Patras, Greece. Aslib Proceedings, 54 (2), 103–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00012530210435239.
   Google Scholar
• Mugridge, R. L., & Edmunds, J. (2009). Using batchloading to improve access to electronic and microform collections. Library Resources & Technical Services, 53 (1), 53–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naidoo, J., Copeland, C., Curran, C., McClain, E., Montgomery, B., & Roughen, P. (2009). A survey of microform users. Microform & Imaging Review, 38 (2), 64–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/mfir.2009.007.
   Google Scholar
• Naylor, M. (1993). A comparison of two methodologies for counting current periodical use. Serials Review, 19 (1), 27–34 (62) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0098-7913(05)80027-9.
   Google Scholar
• Naylor, M. (1994). Comparative results of two current periodical use studies. Library Resources & Technical Services, 38 (4), 373–388.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orenstein, R. M. (1993). “How full is full” revisited: A status report on searching full-text periodicals. Database, 16 (5), 14–23.
   Google Scholar
• Palais, E. S. (1991). In-house guides to microforms collections. Microform Review, 20 (3), 97–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/mfir.1991.20.3.97.
   Google Scholar
• Patterson, E. L. (1990). Hidden treasures: Bibliographic control of microforms, a public services perspective. Microform Review, 19 (2), 76–79.
   Google Scholar
• Pazur, I., & Konjevic, S. (2002). The use and the attitude of scientists from the Rudjer Boskovic Institute about electronic journals: A user study. Retrieved from http://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/519966.user_study.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Rosati, K. T. (2006). The decline of print: Ten years of print serial use in a small academic medical library. The Acquisitions Librarian, 18 (35/36), 107–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J101v18n35_08.
   Google Scholar
• Rupp-Serano, K., Robbins, S., & Cain, D. (2002). Cancelling print serials in favor of electronic: Criteria for decision making. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 26, 369–378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1464-9055(02)00274-9.
   Google Scholar
• Rusch-Feja, D., & Siebecky, U. (1999). Evaluation of usage and acceptance of electronic journals: Results of an electronic survey of Max Planck Society researchers including usage statistics from Elsevier, Springer and Academic Press. D-Lib Magazine, 5 (10). Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october99/rusch-feja/10rusch-feja-summary.html.
   Google Scholar
• Scigliano, M. (2000). Serial use in a small academic library: Determining cost-effectiveness. Serials Review, 26 (1), 43–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0098-7913(99)00069-6.
   Google Scholar
• Sennyey, P., Ellern, G. D., & Newsome, N. (2002). Collection development and a long-term periodical use study: Methodology and implications. Serials Review, 28 (1), 38–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0098-7913(01)00168-X.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, D. A. (2009a). Format overlap of the New York Times: A collection management case study. Collection Management, 34, 94–111.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, D. A. (2009b). A journal back file overlap analysis: Looking back to move forward. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 33, 25–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcats.2009.01.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sprague, N., & Chambers, M. B. (2000). Full-text databases and the journal cancellation process: A case study. Serials Review, 26 (3), 19–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0098-7913(00)00074-5.
   Google Scholar
• Sridhar, M. S. (2002). Are microforms dead? SRELS Journal of information Management, 39 (2), 139–152.
   Google Scholar
• Stokes, J. E. (2007). Print magazines for American college libraries. Serials Review, 33 (3), 165–171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.serrev.2007.06.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoller, M. E. (1991). Large manuscript collections in microform: Is there a better way? Microform Review, 20 (2), 51–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/mfir.1991.20.2.51.
   Google Scholar
• Sweetland, J. H. (1995). User access time: Hard copy and microfilm compared. Microform Review, 24 (3), 133–137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/mfir.1995.24.3.133.
   Google Scholar
• Thohira, M., Chambers, M. B., & Sprague, N. (2010). Full-text databases: A case study revisited a decade later. Serials Review, 36 (3), 152–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.serrev.2010.07.001.
   Google Scholar
• Trueswell, R. L. (1969). Some behavioral patterns of library users: The 80/20 rule. Wilson Library Bulletin, 43, 458–461.
   Google Scholar
• Veit, F. (1971). Microforms, microform equipment and microform use in the educational environment. Library Trends, 19 (4), 447–466.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vishala, B. K., & Bhandi, M. K. (2009). Advantages and disadvantages of e-journals as perceived by the academicians of Universities of Karnataka: A survey report. SRELS Journal of information Management, 46 (3), 229–238.
   Google Scholar
• Weisbrod, E. J., & Duffy, P. (1993). Keeping your online catalog from degenerating into a finding aid: Considerations for loading microformat records into the online catalog. Technical Services Quarterly, 11 (1), 29–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J124v11n01_04.
   Google Scholar
• Wenger, C. B., & Childress, J. (1977). Journal evaluation in a large research library. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 28 (5), 293–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630280509.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, N. H. (1996). Microform publishing: Alive and well in the electronic age. Microform & Imaging Review, 25 (2), 68–72.
   Google Scholar