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
- 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
- Bazeley, P. (2012). Integrative Analysis Strategies for Mixed Data Sources. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 814–828. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211426330
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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]
- 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
- Creswell, J.W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE.
- Creswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE.
- Creswell, J.W., & Poth, C.N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.
- Dahlin, E. (2021). Email Interviews: A Guide to Research Design and Implementation. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211025453
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- EUA. (n.d). Open Science. European University Association. https://eua.eu/issues/21:open-science.html
- 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
- 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
- Gewin, V. (2016). Data sharing: An open mind on open data. Nature, 529, 117–119. https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7584-117a
- 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
- 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]
- 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]
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- IDSI. (2022, December 7). Registry of recognized national scientific journals of the Republic of Moldova. Instrumentul Bibliometric Naţional. https://ibn.idsi.md/ro/registru
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Manco, A. (2022). A Landscape of Open Science Policies Research. SAGE Open, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221140358
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Morris, A. (2015). A practical introduction to in-depth interviewing. SAGE.
- 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
- 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
- OECD. (2020). Enhanced Access to Publicly Funded Data for Science, Technology and Innovation. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/947717bc-en
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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]
- 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
- UNESCO. (2021). UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. UNESCO Digital Library. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379949.locale=en
- UNESCO. (2022). Developing policies for open science. UNESCO Digital Library. https://doi.org/10.54677/VHNY8608
- UNESCO. (n.d.). Global Open Science Partnership. https://en.unesco.org/science-sustainable-future/open-science/partnership
- 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
- 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