Sir, So closely are journals related to their research that academic staff understandably judge any new library policy in terms of what may happen to their own favourite journal. But the essence of the suggested national research reserve is that it would comprise everyone’s least favourite journals (letters, Feb 7, 10 and 13).

The proposal has yet to be piloted. It would not be compulsory. It assumes that librarians can no longer hope to build their way out of the problem of escalating acquisitions. Only journals showing exceptionally low use locally would be considered for dispatch to the reserve.

Once there the British Library would preserve them in the long term and would provide rapid electronic access to them, both tasks at which it has proved to be very good. Sir Brian Follett, writing the Libraries Review Group report in 1993, remarked that the high standard of UK research, comparing well with that of the US, was paradoxical considering the giant size of US university libraries compared with ours. He concluded that one reason for our research success is the role played by the British Library as back-up to individual university libraries.

In the fast-changing world of scholarly information that is a success on which we would do well to build.

TOBY BAINTON
Secretary,
Society of College, National and University Libraries
London NW1

Sir, Robert Poole accuses libraries of “a thieves’ pact . . . to destroy that which it is their function to preserve”. Is it libraries’ function to preserve the paper itself, or merely the words of wisdom printed thereon? If the latter, then surely supporting a print archive with electronic access is prudent.

Those libraries affected by Hurricane Katrina could undoubtedly testify to the ultimate vulnerability of paper journals.

CHARLIE RAPPLE
Oxford

Explore Letters

• Feedback