As a member of the over-50 crowd who has been involved, including editorially, with print publications for many years, I disagree with the lamentations and conclusions about print versus electronic media voiced by physics researcher Matthew Edwards (as quoted by Barbara Sibbald in a recent CMAJ news article1). Now that numerous journals are available online (including, of course, CMAJ) and with nearly universal physician access to the Internet, it has become easier to browse. In addition, many institutional libraries now make it possible for staff to access electronic collections from their homes (via the Internet), which means that they can browse at their leisure. Furthermore, it is easier to e-clip, e-file and e-retrieve “browsed” information of potential later interest (as well as to hyperlink it). Some may miss browsing the paper version of Index Medicus, but with the availability of PubMed 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, grazing one's e-retrievals results in expanded cross-fertilization of ideas (since article abstracts appear in PubMed but not Index Medicus).
Regarding “uncertain shelf life” and the possibility that data “will become corrupted or lost,” I find it incredible that Edwards applies these statements to electronic rather than print media. Electronic texts and journals, especially those stored on a central server, are never at the bindery, never missing, never waiting to be reshelved, never mis-shelved and never unavailable because someone else is using them. Conventional wisdom certainly suggests that e-media are easier to store, locate, secure and back up to ensure accurate, long-term retention. For the size, weight and publication cost of one traditional medical text of 2000-plus pages, one can have dozens of copies in various electronic formats that can be readily cloned to maintain their original integrity for millennia.
Gary N. Fox St. Vincent Mercy Medical Center Toledo, Ohio
Reference
- 1.