Libraries have been in the process of weeding print journal titles in favor of the e-format for years now. Some libraries are using their JSTOR backfile collections as their guides for which print to discard; if the title is in JSTOR a library will withdraw the print from its collection. This seems an odd choice to me because libraries don’t own the e-content, it’s a subscription.
You can argue that in principle a library owns the content because it paid a collection archive fee when it began the subscription, but to access that owned content libraries have to continue to pay an annual access fee. If the library stops paying the access fee JSTOR promises to keep the collection for you, but they’re not going to let you see it. They do promise that if you stop paying the access fee for a while and then start up the subscription again later they won’t make you pay the archive fee again (see 7.1 Archiving of Back Issues near the bottom of http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp). How nice of them?
In essence libraries don’t own JSTOR content in a “gimme it now” kind of way, like e-journal publishers tend to provide. A perpetual access license through an e-journal publisher usually provides a clause with approval to make your own archival copy. Sure, you’ll have to store that content locally, but you can have it and know you’re holding something at the end of the day.
Has your library withdrawn print because you have the e-format of the same content via a JSTOR backfile collection? How have you reconciled this “owned, sort of” situation? When you made your withdrawal decisions did you know that JSTOR wasn’t owned content like our other usual e-journal packages?
