Readiness Toward the Implementation of Open Science Initiatives In the Republic of Moldova
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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/cejpp-2023-0009 | Journal eISSN: 1802-4866
Language: English
Page range: 97 - 118
Submitted on: Apr 5, 2023
Accepted on: May 30, 2023
Published on: Oct 14, 2023
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year
Related subjects:
© 2023 Nelly Țurcan, Gheorghe Cuciureanu, Rodica Cujba, Irina Cojocanu, Igor Cojocaru, published by University of Matej Bel in Banska Bystrica, Faculty of Economics
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.