The relationship between university presses, e-book vendors, and academic libraries: A platform theory analysis

IF 1.4 4区 管理学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Journal of Librarianship and Information Science Pub Date : 2023-07-10 DOI:10.1177/09610006231185883
Mei Zhang, K. Eschenfelder
{"title":"The relationship between university presses, e-book vendors, and academic libraries: A platform theory analysis","authors":"Mei Zhang, K. Eschenfelder","doi":"10.1177/09610006231185883","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"University presses, as one of the major content providers in the scholarly e-book market, especially in humanities and social sciences (HSS), play a critical role in the production and distribution of new knowledge and culture. We investigate the relations among university presses, academic libraries, and e-book vendors, by examining university presses’ perceptions of academic libraries and e-book vendors, and presses’ perceptions of themselves and the university press community. Findings are drawn from one-on-one interviews with 19 participants from 18 different university presses in the United States during 2020–2021. We observe a market structure for HSS e-books where most presses were satisfied with Big Four e-book vendors, including Project MUSE, EBSCO, ProQuest, and JSTOR, and lacked strong incentives to search for new e-book vendors. We find that most presses often treat libraries, including the one from the same institution, as their customers with limited interactions; findings also show university presses’ varied self-imaging, along with a shared perception about the collegiality of the university press community. We then explore the question of why the market is dominated by the Big Four through the theoretical lens developed in platform literature, and further examine the factors contributing to the low communication between university presses and academic libraries related to e-book distribution.","PeriodicalId":47004,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Librarianship and Information Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Librarianship and Information Science","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006231185883","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

University presses, as one of the major content providers in the scholarly e-book market, especially in humanities and social sciences (HSS), play a critical role in the production and distribution of new knowledge and culture. We investigate the relations among university presses, academic libraries, and e-book vendors, by examining university presses’ perceptions of academic libraries and e-book vendors, and presses’ perceptions of themselves and the university press community. Findings are drawn from one-on-one interviews with 19 participants from 18 different university presses in the United States during 2020–2021. We observe a market structure for HSS e-books where most presses were satisfied with Big Four e-book vendors, including Project MUSE, EBSCO, ProQuest, and JSTOR, and lacked strong incentives to search for new e-book vendors. We find that most presses often treat libraries, including the one from the same institution, as their customers with limited interactions; findings also show university presses’ varied self-imaging, along with a shared perception about the collegiality of the university press community. We then explore the question of why the market is dominated by the Big Four through the theoretical lens developed in platform literature, and further examine the factors contributing to the low communication between university presses and academic libraries related to e-book distribution.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
高校出版社、电子书销售商与高校图书馆的关系:一个平台理论分析
大学出版社作为学术电子书市场的主要内容提供者之一,特别是在人文社会科学(HSS)领域,在新知识和文化的生产和传播中起着至关重要的作用。我们通过考察大学出版社对学术图书馆和电子书供应商的看法,以及出版社对自己和大学出版界的看法,来调查大学出版社、学术图书馆和电子书供应商之间的关系。调查结果来自2020-2021年期间对来自美国18所不同大学出版社的19名参与者的一对一访谈。我们观察到HSS电子书的市场结构,大多数出版社对四大电子书供应商(包括Project MUSE、EBSCO、ProQuest和JSTOR)感到满意,并且缺乏寻找新电子书供应商的强烈动机。我们发现,大多数出版社经常把图书馆,包括同一机构的图书馆,当作他们的客户,只有有限的互动;调查结果还显示,大学出版社的自我形象各不相同,同时对大学出版界的合作关系也有共同的看法。然后,我们通过平台文献的理论视角探讨了四大垄断市场的原因,并进一步研究了导致大学出版社和学术图书馆之间在电子书发行方面沟通不足的因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Librarianship and Information Science
Journal of Librarianship and Information Science INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
11.80%
发文量
82
期刊介绍: Journal of Librarianship and Information Science is the peer-reviewed international quarterly journal for librarians, information scientists, specialists, managers and educators interested in keeping up to date with the most recent issues and developments in the field. The Journal provides a forumfor the publication of research and practical developments as well as for discussion papers and viewpoints on topical concerns in a profession facing many challenges.
期刊最新文献
Exploring artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots adoption among research scholars using unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) The moderating effect of technology turbulence on the relationships between e-marketing mix and customer satisfaction for electronic information services Impact of research characteristics and methodologies used in LIS articles on citation count Revitalizing library collection: A critical look at collection weeding practices at university libraries in Pakistan Public libraries’ role in supporting Ukrainian refugees: A focus on Hungary and Poland
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1