Readiness Toward the Implementation of Open Science Initiatives In the Republic of Moldova

Țurcan, Nelly; Cuciureanu, Gheorghe; Cujba, Rodica; Cojocanu, Irina; Cojocaru, Igor

doi:10.2478/cejpp-2023-0009

Abstract

Open Science paradigm involves transformations throughout the entire cycle of scientific research. Decision-makers play the key role of paradigm change facilitators. Consequently, the promotion of Open Science requires a political commitment.

Even though Open Science movement emerged at the international level back in 2002, its principles are being implemented quite slowly in the Republic of Moldova.

Thus, the current study aims to analyze the importance and benefits of Open Science policy implementation, the strategic priorities of the Republic of Moldova on Open Science, barriers in transition to Open Science in the Republic of Moldova, and identification of the key actors in development, adoption, and implementation of Open Science policies in the Republic of Moldova.

The study employed a mixed method: survey among members of the scientific community (quantitative data collection) and semi-structured interviews of the key informants in Open Science policies and practices (qualitative data collection).

References

Abdullahi, K.A., & Noorhidawati, A. (2021). Attributes that influence academics’ data sharing in Nigeria: the effects of organization culture. Information Research, 26(3), paper 908. https://doi.org/10.47989/irpaper908
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Adams, W.C. (2015). Conducting Semi-Structured Interviews. In K.E. Newcomer, H.P. Hatry, J.S. Wholey (Eds.), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation (pp. 492–505). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119171386.ch19
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bazeley, P. (2012). Integrative Analysis Strategies for Mixed Data Sources. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 814–828. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211426330
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bernardi, L., Keim, S., & von der Lippe, H. (2007). Social Influences on Fertility: A Comparative Mixed Methods Study. In Eastern and Western Germany. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 23–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292238
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Boulton, G.S. (2021). Science as a Global Public Good (2nd ed.). International Science Council Position Paper. https://council.science/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Science-as-a-global-public-good_v041021.pdf
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Brannen, J. (2005). Mixing Methods: The Entry of Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches into the Research Process. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(3), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570500154642
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Čehovin, G., Bosnjak, M., & Lozar Manfreda, K. (2022). Item Nonresponse in Web Versus Other Survey Modes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Social Science Computer Review, First published online February 2. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393211056229
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cheradi, N., Țurcan, N., Dobrea, O., Lupu, V., & Silivestru, D. (2023). Benchmarking of institutional Open Access policies and assessment of their readiness in adopting an Open Science Policy [Analiza şi benchmarking privind politicile instituţionale de Acces Deschis şi evaluarea pregătirii pentru implementarea politicilor de Ştiinţa Deschisă]: Deliverable SD-24082 (Final version). Information Society Development Institute. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7501956 [In Romanian]
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cook-Deegan, R., Ankeny, R.A., & Maxson Jones, K. (2017). Sharing Data to Build a Medical Information Commons: From Bermuda to the Global Alliance. Annu. Rev. Genom. Hum. Genet., 18, 389–415. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genom-083115-022515
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Creswell, J.W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Creswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Creswell, J.W., & Poth, C.N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dahlin, E. (2021). Email Interviews: A Guide to Research Design and Implementation. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211025453
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Daikeler, J., Bošnjak, M., & Lozar Manfreda, K. (2020). Web Versus Other Survey Modes: An Updated and Extended Meta-Analysis Comparing Response Rates. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology 8(3), 513–539. https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smz008
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
DeJonckheere, M., & Vaughn, L.M. (2019). Semistructured interviewing in primary care research: a balance of relationship and rigour. Family Medicine and Community Health, 7(2), e000057. https://doi.org/10.1136/fmch-2018-000057
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Denscombe, M. (2009). Item non-response rates: a comparison of online and paper questionnaires. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(4), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570802054706
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Doyle, L., Brady, A.-M., & Byrne, G. (2016). An overview of mixed methods research – revisited. Journal of Research in Nursing, 21(8), 623–635. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987116674257
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
EUA. (2022, February 3). The EUA Open Science Agenda 2025. European University Association. https://eua.eu/resources/publications/1003:the-eua-open-science-agenda-2025.html
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
EUA. (n.d). Open Science. European University Association. https://eua.eu/issues/21:open-science.html
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
European Commission. (2020) The EU's open science policy. European Commission Research and Innovation. https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/strategy-2020-2024/our-digital-future/open-science_en
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Fritz, R.L., & Vandermause, R. (2018). Data Collection via In-Depth Email Interviewing: Lessons From the Field. Qualitative Health Research, 28(10), 1640–1649. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316689067
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gewin, V. (2016). Data sharing: An open mind on open data. Nature, 529, 117–119. https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7584-117a
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gong, K. (2022). Open science: The science paradigm of the new era. Cultures of Science, 5(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/20966083221091867
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Government of the Republic of Moldova. (2019). Methodology for financing of projects in the field of research and innovation [Metodologia de finanţare a proiectelor din domeniul cercetării şi inovării]. Monitorul Oficial al Republicii Moldova, 16 august, nr. 256–259, Modificat: HG 267 din 20.10.21, MO256-260/22.10.21 art. 520; în vigoare 22.11.21. https://www.legis.md/cautare/getResults?doc_id=128339&lang=ro# [In Romanian]
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Government of the Republic of Moldova. (2018, November 8). National Roadmap for the integration of the Republic of Moldova into the European Research Area for the years 2019–2021 [Foaia naţională de parcurs pentru integrarea Republicii Moldova în Spaţiul european de cercetare pe anii 2019–2021]: Hotărârea Guvernului nr. 1081 din 08-11-2018. Monitorul Oficial al Republicii Moldova, 11 ianuarie, nr. 6–12, art. 02. https://www.legis.md/cautare/getResults?doc_id=111352&lang=ro [In Romanian]
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hamilton, R.J., & Bowers, B.J. (2006). Internet Recruitment and E-Mail Interviews in Qualitative Studies. Qualitative Health Research, 16(6), 821–835. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732306287599
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hands, A.S. (2022). Integrating quantitative and qualitative data in mixed methods research: An illustration. The Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 45(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.5206/cjilsrcsib.v45i1.10645
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Harrison, R.L., & Reilly, T.M. (2011). Mixed methods designs in marketing research. Qualitative Market Research, 14(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1108/13522751111099300
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hawkins, J. (2018). The Practical Utility and Suitability of Email Interviews in Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report, 23(2), 493–501. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3266
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Heise, C., & Pearce, J.M. (2020). From Open Access to Open Science: The Path From Scientific Reality to Open Scientific Communication. SAGE Open, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020915900
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hunt, N., & McHale, S. (2007). A Practical Guide to the E-Mail Interview. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 1415–1421. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732307308761
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
IDSI. (2022, December 7). Registry of recognized national scientific journals of the Republic of Moldova. Instrumentul Bibliometric Naţional. https://ibn.idsi.md/ro/registru
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
IDSI. (n.d.). Gateway to national digital repositories in the Republic of Moldova. Instrumentul Bibliometric National. https://ibn.idsi.md/ro/poarta-de-acces-colectii-digitale-din-RM
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
ISC. (2021). Opening the record of science: making scholarly publishing work for science in the digital era. International Science Council. https://doi.org/10.24948/2021.01
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ivankova, N.V., Creswell, J.W., & Stick, S.L. (2006). Using Mixed-Methods Sequential Explanatory Design: From Theory to Practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05282260
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jeanty, G., & Hibel, J. (2014). Mixed Methods Research of Adult Family Care Home Residents and Informal Caregivers. The Qualitative Report, 16(3), 635–656. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2011.1081
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Krejcie, R.V., & Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining Sample Size for Research Activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lacey, J., Coates, R., & Herington, M. (2020). Open science for responsible innovation in Australia: understanding the expectations and priorities of scientists and researchers. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 7(3), 427–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2020.1800969
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lasthiotakis, H., Kretz, A., & Sá, C. (2015). Open science strategies in research policies: A comparative exploration of Canada, the US and the UK. Policy Futures in Education, 13(8), 968–989. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210315579983
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Levin, N., Leonelli, S., Weckowska, D., Castle, D., & Dupré, J. (2016). How Do Scientists Define Openness? Exploring the Relationship Between Open Science Policies and Research Practice. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 36(2), 128–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467616668760
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Maddi, A., Lardreau, E., Sapinho, D., 2021. Open access in Europe: a national and regional comparison. Scientometrics, 126(4), 3131–3152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03887-1
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Manco, A. (2022). A Landscape of Open Science Policies Research. SAGE Open, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221140358
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
McKim, C.A. (2017). The Value of Mixed Methods Research: A Mixed Methods Study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(2), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815607096
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Meho, L.I. (2006). E-mail interviewing in qualitative research: A methodological discussion. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(10), 1284–1295. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20416
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Morais, R., & Borrell-Damian, L. (2019). 2017–2018 EUA Open Access Survey Results. European University Association. https://eua.eu/component/publications/publications.html?id=826:2017-2018-eua-open-access-survey-results
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Morgan, D.L. (2007). Paradigms Lost and Pragmatism Regained: Methodological Implications of Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292462
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Morris, A. (2015). A practical introduction to in-depth interviewing. SAGE.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2007). Integration and Publications as Indicators of “Yield” From Mixed Methods Studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806299094
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
O’Hanlon, R., McSweeney, J., & Stabler, S. (2020). Publishing habits and perceptions of open access publishing and public access amongst clinical and research fellows. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 108(1), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2020.751
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
OECD. (2020). Enhanced Access to Publicly Funded Data for Science, Technology and Innovation. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/947717bc-en
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
OECD. (2022). Recommendation of the Council concerning Access to Research Data from Public Funding. OECD/LEGAL/0347. https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0347
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Oltmann, S. (2016). Qualitative Interviews: A Methodological Discussion of the Interviewer and Respondent Contexts. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 17(2), art. 15. https://doi.org/10.17169/FQS-17.2.2551
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ostaszewski, M. (2014). Analysis of the attitude within academic and research communities toward open science -- a quantitative survey. Conference Opening Science to Meet Future Challenges, Warsaw, March 11, 2014. Interdisciplinary Centre for Mathematical and Computational Modelling, University of Warsaw. https://depot.ceon.pl/handle/123456789/3719
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Östlund, U., Kidd, L., Wengström, Y., & Rowa-Dewar, N. (2011). Combining qualitative and quantitative research within mixed method research designs: A methodological review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 48(3), 369–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.10.005
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pardo Martínez, C., & Poveda, A. (2018). Knowledge and Perceptions of Open Science among Researchers — A Case Study for Colombia. Information, 9(11), 292. https://doi.org/10.3390/info9110292
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Qu, S.Q., & Dumay, J. (2011). The qualitative research interview. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 8(3), 238–264. https://doi.org/10.1108/11766091111162070
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Santos, J.L.G. dos, Erdmann, A.L., Meirelles, B.H.S., Lanzoni, G.M. de M., Cunha, V.P. da, & Ross, R. (2017). Integração entre dados quantitativos e qualitativos em uma pesquisa de métodos mistos. Texto contexto – enferm, 26(3), e1590016. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-07072017001590016
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schöpfel, J., Ferrant, C., André, F., & Fabre, R. (2016). Ready for the future? A survey on open access with scientists from the French National Research Center (CNRS). Interlending & Document Supply, 44(4), 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILDS-06-2016-0023
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Shmagun, H., Shim, J., Choi, K.-N., Shin, S.K., Kim, J., & Oppenheim, C. (2022). Korea's national approach to Open Science: Present and possible future. Journal of Information Science, First published online July 12. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515221107336
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Stentz, J.E., Plano Clark, V.L., & Matkin, G.S. (2012). Applying mixed methods to leadership research: A review of current practices. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(6), 1173–1183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.10.001
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Toli, E., Papadopoulou, E., Liatas, C., Sifakaki, E., Papastamatiou, I., & Prnjat, O. (2020). NI4OS-Europe National OSC initiatives models: Deliverable D2.2. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4061801
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Țurcan, N., Cojocaru, I. (2022). Open Science agenda in the Republic of Moldova: national policies and actions [Agenda Ştiinţei Deschise în Republica Moldova: politici şi acţiuni naţionale]. In: Open Science in the Republic of Moldova. 2nd edition, October 27–28, 2022, Chişinău. Chişinău: “Print-Caro” SRL, 13–60. https://doi.org/10.57066/sdrm22.01 [In Romanian]
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Țurcan, N., Cuciureanu, G., Cujba, R., Lupu, V., Cheradi, N., & Cojocaru, I. (2022). Perception of Open Science in the Scientific Community of the Republic of Moldova. Postmodern Openings, 13(4), 294–334. https://doi.org/10.18662/po/13.4/519
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
UNESCO. (2021). UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. UNESCO Digital Library. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379949.locale=en
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
UNESCO. (2022). Developing policies for open science. UNESCO Digital Library. https://doi.org/10.54677/VHNY8608
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
UNESCO. (n.d.). Global Open Science Partnership. https://en.unesco.org/science-sustainable-future/open-science/partnership
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vicente, P., & Reis, E. (2010). Using Questionnaire Design to Fight Nonresponse Bias in Web Surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 28(2), 251–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439309340751
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Walker, C., & Baxter, J. (2019). Method Sequence and Dominance in Mixed Methods Research: A Case Study of the Social Acceptance of Wind Energy Literature. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919834379
Search in Google Scholar Back to article