Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

A Critique of “Recognizing Digitization as a Preservation Reformatting Method”

Published/Copyright: November 28, 2007
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill
Author Information
Microform & Digitization Review
From the journal Volume 33 Issue 4

After reading successive drafts and the final version of Recognizing Digitization as a Preservation Reformatting Method, I am troubled by a dissonance between the title and the actual messages of this document. Much more than “recognizing,” the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) Preservation of Library Materials Committee “endorses digitization as an accepted preservation reformatting option for a range of materials.” Yet, the Committee does not adequately address concerns about preservation implications inherent to digital reformatting – concerns that have been a frequent topic of discussion within the profession over the past decade. This is not to say that digitization has no role in preservation but rather to say its role is too easily misunderstood. I believe ARL would better serve its membership and the field in general by exploring more systematically the conditions under which digitization is a plausible preservation strategy, describing the ongoing costs and risks in greater detail, and articulating more clearly the relationships between digitization for the purpose of preservation and digitization for other reasons.

Published Online: 2007-11-28
Published in Print: 2004-December

© 2004 by K. G. Saur

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Impressum
  2. From the Editor-in-Chief
  3. Comment and News
  4. Recognizing Digitization as a Preservation Reformatting Method
  5. “Wouldn't Be Prudent”: Digitization as a Preservation Reformatting Method
  6. A Critique of “Recognizing Digitization as a Preservation Reformatting Method”
  7. Addressing a Risk Perspective when Considering Digitization as a Preservation Reformatting Method: A Response from “Down Under”
  8. Digitization as a Preservation Method – A Comment from Singapore
  9. Digitization as a Preservation Method – Comments from the Netherlands
  10. Digital Preservation in the Context of Changing Reading Behaviors and Research Methods
  11. It's Time to Recognize the Technologies That Are in Place
  12. Digitization for Preservation: Far Too Many Benefits over Microfilming
  13. Why the Preservation Community Should Support ARL's Call for Acceptance of Digitization as a Preservation Reformatting Method
  14. Evans Digital Edition
  15. TL-2 (Taxonomic Literature, 2nd edition) Online
  16. Index 2004 Microform & Imaging Review
https://doi.org/10.1515/MFIR.2004.184

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Impressum
  2. From the Editor-in-Chief
  3. Comment and News
  4. Recognizing Digitization as a Preservation Reformatting Method
  5. “Wouldn't Be Prudent”: Digitization as a Preservation Reformatting Method
  6. A Critique of “Recognizing Digitization as a Preservation Reformatting Method”
  7. Addressing a Risk Perspective when Considering Digitization as a Preservation Reformatting Method: A Response from “Down Under”
  8. Digitization as a Preservation Method – A Comment from Singapore
  9. Digitization as a Preservation Method – Comments from the Netherlands
  10. Digital Preservation in the Context of Changing Reading Behaviors and Research Methods
  11. It's Time to Recognize the Technologies That Are in Place
  12. Digitization for Preservation: Far Too Many Benefits over Microfilming
  13. Why the Preservation Community Should Support ARL's Call for Acceptance of Digitization as a Preservation Reformatting Method
  14. Evans Digital Edition
  15. TL-2 (Taxonomic Literature, 2nd edition) Online
  16. Index 2004 Microform & Imaging Review
Downloaded on 5.4.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/MFIR.2004.184/html
Scroll to top button