Managing Higher Education Development in Resource-Limited Academic Environments
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48161/qaj.v6n2a2464Keywords:
Higher Education Management, Resource-Limited Academic Environments, Scholarly Information Access, Research Capacity, Academic Libraries, Information Behavior.Abstract
The development of higher education in resource-limited academic environments depends not only on teaching capacity and institutional governance, but also on researchers’ access to scholarly information. Limited subscriptions, insufficient library budgets, and uneven digital infrastructure create barriers to research productivity and encourage the use of informal access channels, including shadow libraries. These practices reveal not only ethical dilemmas, but also deeper institutional challenges in managing research capacity. This study examines how researchers’ informal access practices reflect problems in managing higher education development in resource-limited academic environments. The study focuses on access to scientific literature as a key element of research support, institutional capacity, and academic development. An online survey was conducted among 450 researchers working in resource-limited academic environments and having experience with informal access channels. Respondents were grouped by region, academic status, and disciplinary affiliation. The questionnaire included items on access to scholarly literature, frequency of use of formal and informal sources, perceived fairness of the scholarly publishing system, ethical sensitivity, and justifications for informal access. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Spearman correlation analysis, Kruskal–Wallis tests, Mann–Whitney pairwise comparisons, and factor analysis. The findings show that informal access practices are associated with several management-related constraints: limited institutional access to legitimate resources, insufficient convenience and speed of formal access channels, perceived unfairness of the publishing system, and weak alignment between academic values and institutional support mechanisms. Information-access constraints were the most frequent explanation, reported by 67.2% of respondents, followed by pragmatic considerations, ethical fairness claims, perceived breach of academic expectations, and civil disobedience. STEM researchers demonstrated the highest frequency of informal access use, while humanities researchers more often emphasized ethical justifications. Significant regional differences indicate that access-management problems vary across academic environments. Informal access to scientific literature should be understood not only as an individual ethical choice, but also as a signal of institutional and systemic weaknesses in managing higher education development. The findings suggest that universities and policymakers in resource-limited environments should strengthen library infrastructure, develop open-access strategies, support inter-institutional resource sharing, and provide ethical guidance for researchers. Effective management of scholarly information access is therefore an important condition for sustainable higher education development.
Downloads
References
Himmelstein, D., Romero, A. R., Levernier, J. G., Munro, T. A., McLaughlin, S. R., Greshake Tzovaras, B., & Greene, C. S. (2018). Sci-hub provides access to nearly all scholarly literature. eLife, 7, e32822.
Buehling, K., Geissler, M., & Strecker, D. (2022). Free access to scientific literature and its influence on the publishing activity in developing countries: The effect of Sci-Hub in the field of mathematics. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 73(9), 1336–1355.
Zharova, A. K. (2024). Classifiers of destructive impacts in digital space. Gaps in Russian Legislation, 17(6), 28–32.
Belozorova, E. N. (2025). Digital financial assets in Russia: Market, infrastructure, and the role of MOEX Group. Banking Services, 2025(8), 39–47.
Akhmetshin, E., Makushkin, S., Abdullayev, I., Yumashev, A., Kozachek, A., Shichiyakh, R., & Shakhov, D. (2024). Opportunities to increase the efficiency of universities’ research and innovation activities: Scientometric evaluation of researchers’ work under external information constraints. Qubahan Academic Journal, 4(1), 240–249.
Petrov, A., Mirzagitova, A., Kuraev, A., & Kirillova, E. (2024). Main threats to human rights and freedoms in the context of digitalization. Jurídicas CUC, 20(1), 343–357.
Kanakova, A. E. (2024). Conceptual model of legal regulation of digitalization of rights and freedoms in the Russian Federation. Gaps in Russian Legislation, 17(3), 44–52.
Walters, W. H. (2025). Comparing conventional and alternative mechanisms of discovering and accessing the scientific literature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 122(27), e2503051122.
Rossello, G., & Martinelli, A. (2024). Breach of academic values and misconduct: The case of Sci-Hub. Scientometrics, 129(9), 5227–5263.
Volosova, N. Yu. (2024). Modern approaches to developing the ethics of using artificial intelligence in legal proceedings. Lobbying in the Legislative Process, 3(2), 56–62.
Shakhov, D., Batashev, R., & Abdullayev, I. (2025). AI-driven personalization in organizational communication. In Proceedings of the 2025 Communication strategies in digital society seminar (ComSDS 2025), April 9, 2025, Saint Petersburg, Russia (pp. 3–7). New York: IEEE.
Greshake, B. (2017). Looking into Pandora’s box: The content of Sci-hub and its usage. F1000Research, 6, 541.
Isaakov, G. N., & Oshmarin, A. A. (2024). On the issue of private and public law: A new manifestation of old problems. Lobbying in the Legislative Process, 3(2), 28–30.
Zukerfeld, M., Liaudat, S., Terlizzi, M. S., Monti, C., & Unzurrunzaga, C. (2022). A specter is haunting science, the specter of piracy. A case study on the use of illegal routes of access to scientific literature by Argentinean researchers. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, 5(1), 2117491.
Nicholas, D., Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Xu, J., Herman, E., Clark, D., Abrizah, A., Rodríguez-Bravo, B., & Świgoń, M. (2019). Sci-hub: The new and ultimate disruptor? View from the front. Learned Publishing, 32(2), 147–153.
Makani, J., & WooShue, K. (2006). Information seeking behaviours of business students and the development of academic digital libraries. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 1(4), 30–45.
Tripathi, M., & Jeevan, V. (2013). A selective review of research on e-resource usage in academic libraries. Library Review, 62(3), 134–156.
Suh, J. S. (2024). Study on the use and perception of Sci-hub among Korean researchers. Journal of Information Science, 50(4), 912–925.
Rezende, L. V. R., Stueber, K., Monteiro, E. C. de S. de A., Silva, F. C. C. da, Oliveira, A. F. de, & Alves, R. A. (2023). Integridade acadêmica no contexto da Ciência Aberta: Cenário brasileiro de questões éticas e legais em pesquisas científicas [Academic integrity in the Open Science context: Brazilian scenario of ethical andlegal issues in scientific research]. BiblioCanto, 9(2), 75–85.
Rossello, G., & Martinelli, A. (2023). Breach of academic values and digital deviant behaviour: The case of Sci-hub. UNU-MERIT Working Papers, 2023–009.
Lawson, S. (2017). Access, ethics, and piracy. Insights: The UKSG Journal, 30(1), 25–30.
Temirkanova , D., Nakisheva, M., Akimzhanov, Y., Karzhassova, G., & Khanov, T. (2025). International legal regulationof access to health information and the right to privacy. Jurídicas CUC, 21(1), 173–187.
Mokhov, A., Svirin, Y., Shestov, S., Pеkshev A., & Artyukhov, E. (2025). Public and private law means of ensuring economic security in Russia. Journal of Sustainable Competitive Intelligence, 15(00), e0525.
Suh, J. Y. (2022). An analysis of usage of Sci-Hub in Korea. Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 56(4), 473–490.
Segado-Boj, F., Martín-Quevedo, J., & Prieto-Gutierrez, J. J. (2024). Jumping over the paywall: Strategies and motivations for scholarly piracy and other alternatives. Information Development, 40(3), 442–460.
Danilova, S. D. (2024). A project-based approach to managing the interaction of digital university stakeholders. Economic Problems and Legal Practice, 20(2), 297–302.
Almuflih, A. S., Abdullayev, I., Bakhvalov, S., Shichiyakh, R., Dash, B. B., Rao, K. B. V. B., & Bansal, K. (2024). Securing IoT devices with zero-day intrusion detection system using binary snake optimization and attention-based bidirectional gated recurrent classifier. Scientific Reports, 14, 29238.
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366–385.
Liu, J., Hood, S. K., & Bon, S. (2025). Developing and validating an ethical sensitivity scale in academic activities (ESS). Journal of Academic Ethics, 23, 2029–2050.
Korotkikh, N. N., & Korostiev, A. A. (2024). Digitalization changes criminal protection of citizens’ rights and freedoms. Gaps in Russian Legislation, 17(6), 169–176.
Beloglazova, L. B., Abdullaev, I., Samusenkov, V. O., & Livson, M. V. (2025). Influence of digitalization on inter-university competition. Perspectives of Science and Education, 3, 607–622.
Glebova, I., Berman, S., Khafizova, L., Biktimirova, A., Alhasov, Z. (2023). Digital divide of regions: Possible growth points for their digital maturity. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 18(5), 1457–1465.
Abdullayev, I., Kupriyanova, A., Stepanova, D., Rybakov, A., Galkin, A., & Malchukova, N. (2024). Reducing social inequality and improving access to education: Features of international legal regulation. Revista Juridica, 3(79), 622–637, e-7514.
Hoy, M. B. (2017). Sci-hub: What librarians should know and do about article piracy. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 36(1), 73–78.
Yakovleva, A. V., & Konyukhovskiy, P. V. (2024). Digital literacy: Results of a public policy analysis illustrated (by an example of Asian countries). Economic Problems and Legal Practice, 20(3), 25–39.
Gurinovich, A., Lapina, M., & Lapin, A. (2024). Conceptual view and legal regulation of project-oriented public administration: The Russian experience (2011-2020) and foreign practices. Balkan Social Science Review, 23(23), 189-213.
González-Solar, L., & Fernández-Marcial, V. (2019). Sci-hub, a challenge for academic and research libraries. El Profesional de la Información, 28(1), e280112.
Kipnis, D. G. (2023). Survey results from academic librarians and professors on teaching and using pirate websites. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 27(1), 1–23.
Correa, J. C., Laverde-Rojas, H., Tejada, J., & Marmolejo-Ramos, F. (2022). The Sci-hub effect on papers’ citations. Scientometrics, 127(1), 99–126.
Medeshova, A., Adelbaeva, N., Kushekkaliev, A., Akimova, S., Khazhgaliyeva, G., Ramazanova, L., & Kassymova, А. (2025). The impact of pedagogical approaches for forming digital competence in students. Qubahan Academic Journal, 4(4), 374–382.
Maddi, A. M. A., & Sapinho, D. (2023). On the culture of open access: The Sci-hub paradox. Scientometrics, 128(10), 5647–5658.
Borrego, Á. (2023). Article processing charges for open access journal publishing: A review. Learned Publishing, 36(3), 359–378.
Ross-Hellauer, T., Reichmann, S., Cole, N. L., Fessl, A., Klebel, T., & Pontika, N. (2022). Dynamics of cumulative advantage and threats to equity in open science: A scoping review. Royal Society Open Science, 9(1), 211032.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Qubahan Academic Journal

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.


