Generate QR code
Open Access
Subscription Access
Competition among digital scientometric platforms: Foundations, limitations, and expected effects on Russian economic science
https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2025-9-142-158
Abstract
The article examines the impact of the monopolization of the digital scientometric platform services market in Russia. Special attention is given to the analysis of methodological and technological limitations of Russia’s leading provider of scientometric data — eLIBRARY (RSCI) platform, including slow and partial innovations, limited integration into the international scientific community, and insufficient instrumental support for the methodological aspect of scientometric evaluation. The relationship between industrial and competition policy tools is considered for overcoming existing barriers for alternative scientometric solutions. The design of mechanisms for these two economic policy directions becomes particularly significant in light of structural alternatives for scientometric and bibliographic support of research activities. The article proposes ways to eliminate coordination flaws resulting from the monopolization of the digital infrastructure of scientific communication. Competitive pressure can be increased through agile technology companies capable of correctly integrating modern artificial intelligence and machine learning solutions with the methodological specifics of the scientific context.
Keywords
economic science,
science policy,
RSCI,
competition,
digital platforms,
indirect network externality
JEL: B41, D02, D40, I20, L40, O30
About the Authors
A. E. Shastitko
Lomonosov Moscow State University;
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Andrey E. Shastitko
Moscow
A. L. Zyubina
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Anastasia L. Zyubina
Moscow
References
1. Avdasheva S. B., Khomik O. S., Chesnokov V. S., Khlyupina V. A. (2025). Impact of the scale effect of recommendation systems on competition in digital platform sectors. Problemy Prognozirovaniya, No. 3, pp. 135—145. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.47711/0868-6351-210-135-145
2. Auzan A. A., Maltsev A. A., Kurdin A. A. (2023). Russian economic education: Image of the near future. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 10, pp. 5—26. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2023-10-5-26
3. Balatsky E. V., Ekimova N. A. (2018). International landscape of the market of Russian economic journals. Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 110—124. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.15838/esc.2018.4.58.7
4. Balatsky E. V., Yurevich M. A. (2021). Russian economic science on the international market of “predatory” publications. Journal of the New Economic Association, No. 2, pp. 190—198. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.31737/2221-2264-2021-50-2-11
5. Grigoryev L. M. (2017). Two discourses in Russian economic science. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 9, pp. 135—158. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2017-9-135-158
6. Dezhina I. G. (2020). Research policy in leading Russian universities: Effects of ‘new managerialism’. University Management: Practice and Analysis, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 13—26. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.15826/umpa.2020.03.023
7. Maltsev A., Bazhenov G. (2018). Modern heterodox directions of economic theory in the context of transformation of mainstream. Obshchestvo i Ekonomika, No. 1, pp. 5—21. (In Russian).
8. Shastitko A. E. (2014). Why competition policy, if there is industrial? Ekonomicheskaya Politika, No. 4, pp. 42—59. (In Russian).
9. Shastitko A. E., Zyubina A. L. (2025). State policy in the field of economics: Foundations, opportunities, guidelines. Science Management: Theory and Practice, [forthcoming]. (In Russian).
10. Shastitko A. E., Markova O. A. (2020). An old friend is better than two new ones? Approaches to market research in the context of digital transformation for the antitrust laws enforcement. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 6, pp. 37—55. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2020-6-37-55
11. Shastitko A. E., Pavlova N. S., Meleshkina A. I., Fatikhova A. F. (2016). Priorities for competition policy in Russia until 2030. Journal of Modern Competition, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 26—45. (In Russian).
12. Yurevich A. V., Yurevich M. A. (2021). Waste in science. Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Vol. 91, No. 8, pp. 724—733. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.31857/S0869587321080107
13. Abalkina A. (2023). Publication and collaboration anomalies in academic papers originating from a paper mill: Evidence from a Russia-based paper mill. Learned Publishing, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 689—702. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1574
14. Abramo G., Oxley L. (2021). Scientometric-based analysis in business and economics: Introduction, examples and guidelines. Journal of Economic Surveys, Vol. 35, pp. 1261—1270. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12476
15. Aghion P. (2016). Growth policy design for middle-income countries. In: R. Cherif, F. Hasanov, M. Zhu (eds.). Breaking the oil spell: The Gulf falcons’ path to diversification. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund Press, pp. 117—130.
16. Avdasheva S. B. (2019). Multi-homing by all means: Russian competition policy towards digital platforms. CPI Antitrust Chronicle, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 55—60.
17. Bamberger K. A., Lobel O. (2017). Platform market power. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 1051—1092.
18. Bartholomew R. E. (2014). Science for sale: The rise of predatory journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol. 107, No. 10, pp. 384—385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076814548526
19. Beall J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, Vol. 489, No. 7415, article 179. https://doi.org/10.1038/489179a
20. Bergemann D., Bonatti A. (2024). Data, competition, and digital platforms. American Economic Review, Vol. 114, No. 8, pp. 2553—2595. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20230478
21. Bharathi D. G. (2013). Methods employed in the ‘Web of Science’ and ‘Scopus’ databases to effect changes in the ranking of the journals. Current Science, Vol. 105, No. 3, pp. 300—308.
22. Bowman J. D. (2014). Predatory publishing, questionable peer review, and fraudulent conferences. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, Vol. 78, No. 10, article 176. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7810176
23. Coyle D. (2019). Practical competition policy implications of digital platforms. Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 82, No. 3, pp. 835—860.
24. Garfield E. (2006). The history and meaning of journal impact factor. JAMA, Vol. 295, pp. 90—93. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.1.90
25. Hagiu A., Wright J. (2015). Multi-sided platforms. International Journal of Industrial Organization, Vol. 43, No. C, pp. 162—174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2015.03.003
26. Iansiti M., Levien R. (2004). The keystone advantage: What the new dynamics of business ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
27. Jacobides M. G., Cennamo C., Gawer A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 39, No. 8, pp. 2255—2276. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2904
28. Kurdin A., Shastitko A. (2020). The new industrial policy: A chance for the BRICS countries. BRICS Journal of Economics, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 60—80. http://doi.org/10.38050/2712-7508-2020-5
29. Lee F. S., Elsner W. (2011). Evaluating economic research in a contested discipline: Ranking, pluralism, and the future of heterodox economics. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
30. Marina T., Sterligov I. (2021). Prevalence of potentially predatory publishing in Scopus on the country level. Scientometrics, Vol. 126, No. 1, pp. 5019—5077. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03899-x
31. Milchior R. (2024). Digital platforms, competition law, and regulation. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Vol. 19, No. 12, pp. 917—918. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpae074
32. Visser M., van Eck N. J., Waltman L. (2021). Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. Quantitative Science Studies, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 20—41. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00112
33. Yablonsky S. (ed.) (2018). Multi-sided platforms (MSPs) and sharing strategies in the digital economy: Emerging research and opportunities. Hershey, PE: IGI Global.
34. Zhu J., Liu W. (2020). A tale of two databases: The use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers. Scientometrics, Vol. 123, pp. 321—335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03387-8
Supplementary files
Review
For citations:
Shastitko A.E., Zyubina A.L. Competition among digital scientometric platforms: Foundations, limitations, and expected effects on Russian economic science. Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2025;(9):142-158. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2025-9-142-158
Views:
32
Email this article 
