The aim of this article is to analyze and assess the scientific collaboration between the Republic of Armenia (RA) and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) member-states.

In the Introduction, the article dwells into the integration processes that started right after the collapse of the Soviet Union with a main emphasis on the EAEU. The situation in the scientific sphere in Armenia is presented briefly, followed by highlighting the role of international scientific collaboration as a way to overcome a crisis in the science field.

The role of the Committee of Sciences of the RA in the development of international collaboration is emphasized. The first steps in the framework of EAEU to activate scientific-technical cooperation are stressed.

The Materials and Methods Section outlines the databases on which the study is based, that are the Web of Science Core Collection (WOS CC) and the Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI). The timeframe for the data retrieved from the WOS CC is 1991–2016, while for the RSCI — 2005–2016. The types of collaborations, as well as five stages of research — data retrieval from the WOS CC and the RSCI, data cleaning, quantitative analysis of citation, quantitative analysis of co-authored papers of the RA with each EAEU member-state and the distribution of the co-authored papers by the scientific fields — are mentioned.

The Results Section presents the results of the study by the five mentioned stages and the relevant analysis.

The Discussion and Conclusion Section presents the main conclusions of the study. It mainly stresses that Russia is the main scientific partner of Armenia, followed by Belarus. Scientific collaboration of Armenia with Kazakhstan and Kirgizia are on a very low level. Physics was recognized to be the leading field of collaboration. Generally, the article concludes that it is too early to speak about the role of the EAEU in the development of scientific collaboration between the member-states. In order to assure a stable growth of collaboration among the EAEU member-states a huge work should be done.

In this research we address the issue of Russian scholarly journals being almost isolated from the global research community. We have identified 2 conditions which seem alerting: (1) the authors who publish in Russian journals are mostly Russian and (2) papers in Russian sources are cited mostly by Russian authors. In this paper we provide justification for a more intensive integration of Russian titles into international research process and suggest the most obvious ways to make it happen.

The Group of Russian Physical Journals, included to Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) Data Base from Web of Science (WOS) Core Collection is analyzed from the Positions of their Rank and Level in the SCIE Data Base. These Journals (on the Base of Data from SCIE) have been divided by Subject Categories, and (with according to their Rank and Quartile from SCIE) the Participation of Russian Physical Journals in every Subject Category has been revealed. The Relative Impact Factors for these Journals have been calculated. On the Base of these calculated Journal’s Parameters all Journals have been ranked both for their Subject Categories and for the Physics Thematic (including all “Physics” Subject Categories) in a whole. The “most demanded” (from the “Citing” Point of View) Journals for every Subject Category have been determined.

The Average Relative Impact Factors of the Russian Journals for every Subject Category have been calculated, and all Categories, including Russian Journals, have been ranked, using this Parameter.

The Participation of the Journals of different Countries have been examined for the example of PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Subject Category (“most representing” for Russian Journals). As it was shown, Russian Journals share 3–6 Places among the Journals of 23 countries, participating in this Category.

Educational and methodological support of the main professional educational programs of higher education (hereinafter referred to as MPEP) is an integral component and an important condition for the licensing, implementation and accreditation of these programs. An analysis of the publications of the last five years shows that universities and libraries of educational institutions are in search of modern software alternatives to the book supply modules included in automated library information systems (hereinafter — ABIS). In Herzen Stage Pedagogical University the launch of the Book Supply module, created as an external online software product using data streams from various sources, was the impetus for the formation of a whole complex of automated modules that allow real-time monitoring of the effective use in the educational process of both the printed fund and the fund of electronic publications presented on the platforms of publishers and aggregators, access to which is provided by subscription. Based on the data provided by the software package, the authors show the need and importance of continuous monitoring of the state of educational and methodological support of the educational process in order to respond quickly, adjust printed and electronic funds, interact meaningfully with departments and maintain the balance of printed and electronic information appropriate to the current state of development information technology and user readiness to perceive different types of information. The technique presented by the authors allows to form a harmonious content of educational and methodological support.

The challenges of the digital revolution need critical rethinking the usual functions of the university libraries and to establish what characteristics it must have in order to adapt effectively to the new technological situation.

The article analyzes the reasons for the frequent lack of demand by researchers of digitized textual heritage and presents the idea of a problem-thematic online resource “Reconstructing the Reader: a Rare Book Collection in the Regional Cultural Landscape” developed by the Laboratory for Library and Communicative Studies (Tomsk State University).

Conceptually, its implementation aims at overcoming the positivistic approach to the library as a “repository of information on paper and electronic medium”, and in practice — at identifying the ways to integrate the university libraries into a new format of scientific knowledge and scholarly communications.

Introduction. For a better theoretical understanding of the notion of “impact” (introduced by E. Garfield in 1955) definitions and perceptions of the mentioned notion used in scientometric literature have been analyzed.

Materials and methods. Analytical interpretation of the scientific literature related to this problem (since 1955). The author considers the concept “impact” in its initial meaning of ‘scientific impact’.

Results. The existing and used meanings of the term “impact” either are treated as a synonym of “influence” or do not go beyond the concept of “strong impression”, or coincide with the meaning of the term “pertinence”, or refer to purely technical indicators.

Discussion and Conclusions. The conclusion has been made that that it is unreasonable to consider “impact” as a key notion of scientometrics because the notion is not sufficiently defined.