This first issue of 2008 is another terrific collection of papers addressing the rapidly changing environment in which we work. Thomas E. Nisonger returns to a familiar analysis tool, the checklist method, which was developed in a print environment, and evaluates the full text, indexing, and abstracting coverage of two databases (Library Literature and Information Science Full Text and EBSCOhost Academic Search Premier). Nisonger compares citations to journal articles that were published in Library Resources & Technical Services and Collection Building. He concludes by identifying areas for future research.

We are delighted to publish two papers based on presentations given at the Eighth Annual Symposium on Scholarly Communication, “Converting and Preserving the Scholarly Record,” held at State University of New York, Albany, October 24, 2006. Trudi Bellardo Hahn’s paper, “Mass Digitization: Implications for Preserving the Scholarly Record,” looks at the intersection (or not) of libraries’ interests and those of commercial entities in terms of quality, secrecy, and long-term stability. She issues a call for the library profession to exercise strong leadership in how best to preserve the scholarly record. Jeffrey L. Horrell, in “Converting and Preserving the Scholarly Record: An Overview,” which was delivered at the same symposium, explores pertinent aspects of the challenge and concludes with recommended elements for a campuswide digital repository

Su Chen and Chengzhi Wang consider scholarly and publishing trends in Western-language monographs in East Asian studies from 2000 through 2005. Their findings demonstrate increased activity and interest in this area as publishers and academia pay more attention to China, Japan, and Korea.

How persistent is a URL? May F. Casserly and James E. Bird seek to answer this question through statistical analysis and identification of citation characteristics associated with availability. Building on research the authors conducted in 2002, they report that the overall availability of Web content in the sample dropped from 89.2 percent to 80.6 percent.

Jim LeBlanc and Martin Kurth propose an operational model for maintaining library metadata. They begin by noting that few libraries devote the same level of attention and resources to maintaining non-MARC metadata as they devote to MARC records and to the traditional catalog. The model that LeBlanc and Kurth suggest builds on the idea that the expertise and skills that guide catalog data curation can be applied to metadata maintenance in a broader set of information delivery systems.

This issue’s Notes on Operations piece by Virginia Kay Williams and June Schmidt investigates methods of determining average prices used in allocation formulas and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches—drawing on data from Mississippi State University Libraries, the Bowker Annual, previous acquisition cost data, Blackwell Price Reports, and Blackwell approval plan profiles.