This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
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/irpaper908AbdullahiK.A.NoorhidawatiA.2021Attributes that influence academics’ data sharing in Nigeria: the effects of organization culture263paper 908. https://doi.org/10.47989/irpaper908Search in Google Scholar
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.ch19AdamsW.C.2015Conducting Semi-Structured InterviewsInNewcomerK.E.HatryH.P.WholeyJ.S.(Eds.),492505John Wiley & Sons, Inc.https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119171386.ch19Search in Google Scholar
Bazeley, P. (2012). Integrative Analysis Strategies for Mixed Data Sources. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 814–828. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211426330BazeleyP.2012Integrative Analysis Strategies for Mixed Data Sources566814828https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211426330Search in Google Scholar
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/10.1177/2345678906292238BernardiL.KeimS.von der LippeH.2007Social Influences on Fertility: A Comparative Mixed Methods Study. In Eastern and Western Germany112347https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292238Search in Google Scholar
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.pdfBoultonG.S.20212nd ed.International Science Council Position Paperhttps://council.science/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Science-as-a-global-public-good_v041021.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
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/10.1080/13645570500154642BrannenJ.2005Mixing Methods: The Entry of Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches into the Research Process83173184https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570500154642Search in Google Scholar
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/10.1177/08944393211056229ČehovinG.BosnjakM.Lozar ManfredaK.2022Item Nonresponse in Web Versus Other Survey Modes: A Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisFirst published online February 2. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393211056229Search in Google Scholar
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]CheradiN.ȚurcanN.DobreaO.LupuV.SilivestruD.2023Information Society Development Institutehttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7501956 [In Romanian]Search in Google Scholar
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-083115-022515Cook-DeeganR.AnkenyR.A.Maxson JonesK.2017Sharing Data to Build a Medical Information Commons: From Bermuda to the Global Alliance18389415https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genom-083115-022515Search in Google Scholar
Creswell, J.W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE.CreswellJ.W.2015SAGESearch in Google Scholar
Creswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE.CreswellJ.W.Plano ClarkV.L.20183rd ed.SAGESearch in Google Scholar
Creswell, J.W., & Poth, C.N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.CreswellJ.W.PothC.N.20184th ed.SAGESearch in Google Scholar
Dahlin, E. (2021). Email Interviews: A Guide to Research Design and Implementation. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211025453DahlinE.2021Email Interviews: A Guide to Research Design and Implementation20https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211025453Search in Google Scholar
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/smz008DaikelerJ.BošnjakM.Lozar ManfredaK.2020Web Versus Other Survey Modes: An Updated and Extended Meta-Analysis Comparing Response Rates83513539https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smz008Search in Google Scholar
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-2018-000057DeJonckheereM.VaughnL.M.2019Semistructured interviewing in primary care research: a balance of relationship and rigour72e000057https://doi.org/10.1136/fmch-2018-000057Search in Google Scholar
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/10.1080/13645570802054706DenscombeM.2009Item non-response rates: a comparison of online and paper questionnaires124281291https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570802054706Search in Google Scholar
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/10.1177/1744987116674257DoyleL.BradyA.-M.ByrneG.2016An overview of mixed methods research – revisited218623635https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987116674257Search in Google Scholar
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.htmlEUA2022February3European University Associationhttps://eua.eu/resources/publications/1003:the-eua-open-science-agenda-2025.htmlSearch in Google Scholar
EUA. (n.d). Open Science. European University Association. https://eua.eu/issues/21:open-science.htmlEUA(n.d).European University Associationhttps://eua.eu/issues/21:open-science.htmlSearch in Google Scholar
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_enEuropean Commission2020European Commission Research and Innovationhttps://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/strategy-2020-2024/our-digital-future/open-science_enSearch in Google Scholar
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/10.1177/1049732316689067FritzR.L.VandermauseR.2018Data Collection via In-Depth Email Interviewing: Lessons From the Field281016401649https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316689067Search in Google Scholar
Gewin, V. (2016). Data sharing: An open mind on open data. Nature, 529, 117–119. https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7584-117aGewinV.2016Data sharing: An open mind on open data529117119https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7584-117aSearch in Google Scholar
Gong, K. (2022). Open science: The science paradigm of the new era. Cultures of Science, 5(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/20966083221091867GongK.2022Open science: The science paradigm of the new era5139https://doi.org/10.1177/20966083221091867Search in Google Scholar
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 Moldova2019Methodology for financing of projects in the field of research and innovation [Metodologia de finanţare a proiectelor din domeniul cercetării şi inovării]16august256259Modificat: 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
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]Government of the Republic of Moldova2018November8National 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 08-11-201811ianuarie612art. 02. https://www.legis.md/cautare/getResults?doc_id=111352&lang=ro [In Romanian]Search in Google Scholar
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/10.1177/1049732306287599HamiltonR.J.BowersB.J.2006Internet Recruitment and E-Mail Interviews in Qualitative Studies166821835https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732306287599Search in Google Scholar
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.v45i1.10645HandsA.S.2022Integrating quantitative and qualitative data in mixed methods research: An illustration451120https://doi.org/10.5206/cjilsrcsib.v45i1.10645Search in Google Scholar
Harrison, R.L., & Reilly, T.M. (2011). Mixed methods designs in marketing research. Qualitative Market Research, 14(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1108/13522751111099300HarrisonR.L.ReillyT.M.2011Mixed methods designs in marketing research141726https://doi.org/10.1108/13522751111099300Search in Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. (2018). The Practical Utility and Suitability of Email Interviews in Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report, 23(2), 493–501. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3266HawkinsJ.2018The Practical Utility and Suitability of Email Interviews in Qualitative Research232493501https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3266Search in Google Scholar
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/10.1177/2158244020915900HeiseC.PearceJ.M.2020From Open Access to Open Science: The Path From Scientific Reality to Open Scientific Communication102https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020915900Search in Google Scholar
Hunt, N., & McHale, S. (2007). A Practical Guide to the E-Mail Interview. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 1415–1421. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732307308761HuntN.McHaleS.2007A Practical Guide to the E-Mail Interview171014151421https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732307308761Search in Google Scholar
IDSI. (2022, December 7). Registry of recognized national scientific journals of the Republic of Moldova. Instrumentul Bibliometric Naţional. https://ibn.idsi.md/ro/registruIDSI2022December7Instrumentul Bibliometric Naţionalhttps://ibn.idsi.md/ro/registruSearch in Google Scholar
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-RMIDSI(n.d.).Instrumentul Bibliometric Nationalhttps://ibn.idsi.md/ro/poarta-de-acces-colectii-digitale-din-RMSearch in Google Scholar
ISC. (2021). Opening the record of science: making scholarly publishing work for science in the digital era. International Science Council. https://doi.org/10.24948/2021.01ISC2021International Science Councilhttps://doi.org/10.24948/2021.01Search in Google Scholar
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/10.1177/1525822X05282260IvankovaN.V.CreswellJ.W.StickS.L.2006Using Mixed-Methods Sequential Explanatory Design: From Theory to Practice181320https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05282260Search in Google Scholar
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/10.46743/2160-3715/2011.1081JeantyG.HibelJ.2014Mixed Methods Research of Adult Family Care Home Residents and Informal Caregivers163635656https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2011.1081Search in Google Scholar
Krejcie, R.V., & Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining Sample Size for Research Activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308KrejcieR.V.MorganD.W.1970Determining Sample Size for Research Activities303607610https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308Search in Google Scholar
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/10.1080/23299460.2020.1800969LaceyJ.CoatesR.HeringtonM.2020Open science for responsible innovation in Australia: understanding the expectations and priorities of scientists and researchers73427449https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2020.1800969Search in Google Scholar
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/10.1177/1478210315579983LasthiotakisH.KretzA.SáC.2015Open science strategies in research policies: A comparative exploration of Canada, the US and the UK138968989https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210315579983Search in Google Scholar
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/10.1177/0270467616668760LevinN.LeonelliS.WeckowskaD.CastleD.DupréJ.2016How Do Scientists Define Openness? Exploring the Relationship Between Open Science Policies and Research Practice362128141https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467616668760Search in Google Scholar
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/s11192-021-03887-1MaddiA.LardreauE.SapinhoD.2021Open access in Europe: a national and regional comparison126431313152https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03887-1Search in Google Scholar
Manco, A. (2022). A Landscape of Open Science Policies Research. SAGE Open, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221140358MancoA.2022A Landscape of Open Science Policies Research124https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221140358Search in Google Scholar
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/10.1177/1558689815607096McKimC.A.2017The Value of Mixed Methods Research: A Mixed Methods Study112202222https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815607096Search in Google Scholar
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.20416MehoL.I.2006E-mail interviewing in qualitative research: A methodological discussion571012841295https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20416Search in Google Scholar
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-resultsMoraisR.Borrell-DamianL.2019European University Associationhttps://eua.eu/component/publications/publications.html?id=826:2017-2018-eua-open-access-survey-resultsSearch in Google Scholar
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/10.1177/2345678906292462MorganD.L.2007Paradigms Lost and Pragmatism Regained: Methodological Implications of Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods114876https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292462Search in Google Scholar
Morris, A. (2015). A practical introduction to in-depth interviewing. SAGE.MorrisA.2015SAGESearch in Google Scholar
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/10.1177/1558689806299094O’CathainA.MurphyE.NichollJ.2007Integration and Publications as Indicators of “Yield” From Mixed Methods Studies12147163https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806299094Search in Google Scholar
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.2020.751O’HanlonR.McSweeneyJ.StablerS.2020Publishing habits and perceptions of open access publishing and public access amongst clinical and research fellows10814758https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2020.751Search in Google Scholar
OECD. (2020). Enhanced Access to Publicly Funded Data for Science, Technology and Innovation. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/947717bc-enOECD2020OECD Publishinghttps://doi.org/10.1787/947717bc-enSearch in Google Scholar
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-0347OECD2022OECD/LEGAL/0347https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0347Search in Google Scholar
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-17.2.2551OltmannS.2016Qualitative Interviews: A Methodological Discussion of the Interviewer and Respondent Contexts172art. 15. https://doi.org/10.17169/FQS-17.2.2551Search in Google Scholar
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/123456789/3719OstaszewskiM.2014Conference Opening Science to Meet Future ChallengesWarsawMarch 11, 2014Interdisciplinary Centre for Mathematical and Computational Modelling, University of Warsawhttps://depot.ceon.pl/handle/123456789/3719Search in Google Scholar
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.2010.10.005ÖstlundU.KiddL.WengströmY.Rowa-DewarN.2011Combining qualitative and quantitative research within mixed method research designs: A methodological review483369383https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.10.005Search in Google Scholar
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/info9110292Pardo MartínezC.PovedaA.2018Knowledge and Perceptions of Open Science among Researchers — A Case Study for Colombia911292https://doi.org/10.3390/info9110292Search in Google Scholar
Qu, S.Q., & Dumay, J. (2011). The qualitative research interview. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 8(3), 238–264. https://doi.org/10.1108/11766091111162070QuS.Q.DumayJ.2011The qualitative research interview83238264https://doi.org/10.1108/11766091111162070Search in Google Scholar
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/10.1590/0104-07072017001590016SantosJ.L.G. dosErdmannA.L.MeirellesB.H.S.LanzoniG.M. de M.CunhaV.P. daRossR.2017Integração entre dados quantitativos e qualitativos em uma pesquisa de métodos mistos263e1590016https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-07072017001590016Search in Google Scholar
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-06-2016-0023SchöpfelJ.FerrantC.AndréF.FabreR.2016Ready for the future? A survey on open access with scientists from the French National Research Center (CNRS)444141149https://doi.org/10.1108/ILDS-06-2016-0023Search in Google Scholar
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/10.1177/01655515221107336ShmagunH.ShimJ.ChoiK.-N.ShinS.K.KimJ.OppenheimC.2022Korea's national approach to Open Science: Present and possible futureFirst published online July 12. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515221107336Search in Google Scholar
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.2012.10.001StentzJ.E.Plano ClarkV.L.MatkinG.S.2012Applying mixed methods to leadership research: A review of current practices23611731183https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.10.001Search in Google Scholar
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.4061801ToliE.PapadopoulouE.LiatasC.SifakakiE.PapastamatiouI.PrnjatO.2020https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4061801Search in Google Scholar
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]ȚurcanN.CojocaruI.2022Open Science agenda in the Republic of Moldova: national policies and actions [Agenda Ştiinţei Deschise în Republica Moldova: politici şi acţiuni naţionale]In:2nd editionOctober27–282022ChişinăuChişinău: “Print-Caro” SRL, 13–60. https://doi.org/10.57066/sdrm22.01 [In Romanian]Search in Google Scholar
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/13.4/519ȚurcanN.CuciureanuG.CujbaR.LupuV.CheradiN.CojocaruI.2022Perception of Open Science in the Scientific Community of the Republic of Moldova134294334https://doi.org/10.18662/po/13.4/519Search in Google Scholar
UNESCO. (2021). UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. UNESCO Digital Library. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379949.locale=enUNESCO2021UNESCO Digital Libraryhttps://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379949.locale=enSearch in Google Scholar
UNESCO. (2022). Developing policies for open science. UNESCO Digital Library. https://doi.org/10.54677/VHNY8608UNESCO2022UNESCO Digital Libraryhttps://doi.org/10.54677/VHNY8608Search in Google Scholar
UNESCO. (n.d.). Global Open Science Partnership. https://en.unesco.org/science-sustainable-future/open-science/partnershipUNESCO(n.d.).https://en.unesco.org/science-sustainable-future/open-science/partnershipSearch in Google Scholar
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/10.1177/0894439309340751VicenteP.ReisE.2010Using Questionnaire Design to Fight Nonresponse Bias in Web Surveys282251267https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439309340751Search in Google Scholar
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/10.1177/1609406919834379WalkerC.BaxterJ.2019Method Sequence and Dominance in Mixed Methods Research: A Case Study of the Social Acceptance of Wind Energy Literature18https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919834379Search in Google Scholar