Russian market of electronic resources: providers and users

Aim. The article aims at the analysis of the dynamics and the structure of the Russian markets of scholarly electronic information broken by reference groups of providers and users.

Materials and Methods. Materials comprise results of the data processing of the Russian surveys on acquisition budgets in 2012–2018 and published results of the international surveys. We analyze three main reference groups and four sub-groups of the Russian organizations and three reference groups of providers of the electronic scholarly information. We obtained market shares of different reference groups of Russian subscribers and analyzed temporal dynamics of the market structure in 2012–2018.

We obtained subscription chains and preferences broken by resource providers in Russia and compared our results with the results of the 2018 survey of American academics. We developed Russian rating of information providers and estimated market shares of each reference group.

Results. The market of electronic scholarly information shows continuous concentration towards the group of universities. In 2018, relative share of the university segment of the market of electronic resources made 94%. Since 2015, the share of the reference group of the universities of the 5/100 project increased from 36% to 46%, whereas the share of two national Russian universities shrank from 12% to 9% in 2017–2018. The Russian market of electronic resources is broken in three nearly equal parts related to three groups of resource providers and producers: 35% belong to the group of international publishers, 36% – to the Russian subscription agents and 29% – to the Russian producers and providers of electronic information. Nine of ten organizations responded that they subscribe via Russian information vendors and subscription agents and four of ten – directly via international publishers. This result corresponds to the results of the Academic Library Collection Development Survey 2018.

Conclusions. One can conclude that the Russian market of electronic resources is monopolized as referred to the users/consumers of scholarly electronic information and non-monopolized referring the providers and producers of electronic resources. The market comprises three almost equal segments related to three reference groups of providers and producers of electronic resources. The majority of Russian organizations subscribe to electronic resources via Russian electronic information producers or agents.

1. Razumova I. K., Kuznetsov A. Yu. World and national trends in university information support. Integratsiya obrazovaniya, 2018, 22(3), 426–440 (In Russ.). DOI: 10.15507/19919468.092.022.201803.426-440.

2. Razumova I. K. Zhurnaly i knigi. Podpiska na elektronnye resursy v Rossii i v mire: analiz resul’tatov oprosov 2016–2017 [Periodicals and books. Subscription to e-resources in Russia and worldwide: 2016–2017 survey analysis]. URL: http://nlr.ru/tus/20170327/prezent/23.pdf (accessed 25.04.2019). (In Russ.).

3. Razumova I. K. Zatraty na elektronnye resursy. Bolevye tochki i tochki rosta [Electronic acquisition expenditures. Pain and growth points]. URL: http://nlr.ru/nlr_pro/dep/artupload/pro/article/RA2032/NA15033.pdf (accessed 25.04.2019). (In Russ.).

4. Razumova I. K., Kuznetsov A. Yu. National subscription and library acquisition. Pt. 1. Acquisition budgets in Russian institutions. Nauka i nauchnaya informatsiya, 2019, 2(2), 96–109. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24108/2658-3143-2019-2-2-96-109.

5. Sandstrӧm U. Research quality and diversity of funding: a model for relating research money to output of research. Scientometrics, 2009, 79(2), 341–349. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-009-0422-2.

6. Leydesdorff L., Wagner C. Macro-level indicators of the relations between research funding and research output. Journal of Informetrics, 2009, 3(4), 353–362. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2009.05.005.

7. Wang Xianwen, Liu Di, Ding Kun, Wang Xinran. Science funding and research output: a study on 10 countries. Scientometrics, 2012, 91(2), 591–599. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0576-6.

8. Moed H. F. Statistical relationships between downloads and citations at the level of individual documents within a single journal. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2005, 56(10), 1088–1097. DOI: 10.1002/asi.20200.

9. Jung Y., Kim J., So M., Kim H. Statistical relationships between journal use and research output at academic institutions in South Korea. Scientometrics, 2015, 103(3), 751–777. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-0151563-0.

10. Razumova I. K., Moskaleva O. V. Bibliometrich eskii i naukometricheskii analiz podpiski s ispol’zovaniev instrumentov platform InCites [Bibliometric and scientometric analysis of subscribed content with InCites tools]. URL: https://conf.neicon.ru/materials/29-Overseas2017/20170927-08-Razumova.pdf (accessed 01.07.2018). (In Russ.).

11. Moskaleva O. V., Razumova I. K. Twelve years of access to electronic serials in Russia: Results and perspectives. The Serials Librarian. 2017, 73(3/4), 305–326. DOI: 10.1080/0361526X.2017.1391151.

12. Razumova I. K. Economic expedience of the OA transfer of Russian articles in resources subscribed by RFBR and the Ministry of science and higher education of Russia. World-class scientific publication-2019: strategy and tactics of management and development : 8th Intern. sci. a. pract. conf. Moscow, 2019. URL: https://conf.rasep.ru/files/conferences/1/materials/2019.04.23_RAZUMOVA.pdf (accessed 25.04.2019).

13. Van der Vooren R. Overview of costs incurred by universities for books and journals by publisher. URL: http://www.vsnu.nl/en_GB/cost-of-publication (accessed 25.04.2019).

14. Academic publisher costs in Finland 2010–2016. Ministry of Education and Culture of Finland and its Open Science and Research Initiative 2014–2017. Estin. URL: http://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi:csc-kata20170613104454620616 (accessed 25.04.2019).

15. Lawson S., Meghreblian B., Brook M. Journal subscription costs FOIs to UK universities. Figshare. 2015. URL: https://figshare.com/articles/Journal_subscription_ costs_FOIs_ to_UK_universities/1186832 (accessed 25.04.2019).

16. Razumova I. K., Kuznetsov A. Yu., Kirillova O. V. Information support of Russian universities in core research areas. Integratsiya obrazovaniya. 2017, 21(3), 505–521. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.15507/19919468.088.021.201703.505-521.

17. Kuznetsov A. Yu., Razumova I. K Information support of science and education. Universitetskaya kniga, 2014, 5, 46–50 URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=21507486 (accessed 25.04.2019). (In Russ.).

18. Evstigneeva G. A. National access to international databases within the Federal Target Program “Research and development in priority fields of the science and technology complex of Russia for 2014–2020”. Nauchnye i tekhnicheskiye biblioteki, 2016, 5, 29–43. URL: http://www.gpntb.ru/ntb/ntb/2016/5/NTB5_2016_%D0%905_2.pdf (accessed 25.04.2019). (In Russ.).

19. Belyavsky O. V., Zhurbina I. A., Lutay A. V. Use of full-text electronic resources in Russian Federation, comparative analysis of centralized subscription and Sci-Hub. (In Russ.). Moscow, RFFI, 2018. 57 p. URL: https://www.rfbr.ru/rffi/ru/popular_science_articles/o_2074362#1 (accessed 25.04.2019). (In Russ.). DOI: 10.22204/гр.2018.а01.

20. Razumova I. K., Kuznetsov A. Yu. National subscription and library acquisition. Pt. 2. Book acquisition budgets in Russian libraries. Structure of Russian markets of information resources. Nauka i nauchnaya informatsiya, 2019, 2(2), 110–120. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24108/2658-31432019-2-2-110-120.

21. Academic library collection development survey 2018. Library Journal Research. URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/WebVault/research/2018_AcademicLibraryCollectioDevelopment.pdf (accessed 25.04.2019).

22. Library budget predictions for 2016. [S. l.], Publ. Communic. Group, 2016. 41 p. URL: http://www.pcgplus.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Library-BudgetPrediction-2016-Final.pdf (accessed 25.04.2019).

23. Library Budget Predictions for 2017. Boston, Publ. Communic. Group, 2017. 34 p. URL: www.pcgplus.com/wp-content/.../Library-Budget-Predictions-for-2017-public.pdf (accessed 25.04.2019).

24. Swan A., Brown S. Authors and open access publishing. Learned Publishing, 2004, 17(3), 219–224. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1087/095315104323159649.

25. Procter R., Williams R., Stewart J., Poschen M., Snee H., Voss A., Asgari-Targhi M. Adoption and use of Web 20 in scholarly communications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Sect. A, 2010, 368(1926), 4039–4056. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0155.