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

Research design can be divided in three basic types: exploratory sequential designs, explanatory sequential designs, and convergent designs (Creswell, 2015). The exploratory design begins with qualitative data collection and analysis phase, which builds to the subsequent quantitative phase. The explanatory design begins with quantitative data collection and analysis phase, which serves as input for the qualitative research phase. Convergent design means the simultaneous collection and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data, followed by an integrated analysis.

The current study employs an explanatory design, with mixed sequential methods, to investigate the outlook of the scientific community in the Republic of Moldova on Open Science, as well as the actions needed to create a favorable framework for open research and alignment with the European Open Science practices.

The reason for sequential explanatory design of the mixed method is that often, “quantitative data and their subsequent analysis provide a general understanding,” while “qualitative data and their analysis refine and explain those statistical results” (Ivankova et al., 2006). Most of the literature suggests that quantitative methods usually take precedence (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2018; Doyle et al., 2016; Harrison and Reilly, 2011; Jeanty and Hibel, 2014; Stentz et al., 2012; Walker and Baxter, 2019).

In this framework, an initial quantitative investigation (Study 1) informed the subsequent qualitative study (Study 2). Therefore, the qualitative study was based on the results of the quantitative study (Creswell, 2015, p. 37).

The integration of quantitative and qualitative data as a central element of mixed methods has been increasingly highlighted (Brannen, 2005; Hands, 2022; Morgan, 2007; O’Cathain et al., 2007; Santos et al., 2017). Integration is an intentional process by which the researcher brings together quantitative and qualitative approaches in a study (Creswell, 2015, p. 2). Quantitative and qualitative data then become interdependent in addressing common research questions and hypotheses (Bazeley, 2012, p. 816).

Most commonly, the use of a mixed methods design is determined by pragmatic issues: the increasing demand for cost-effective research and the shift from theory-based research to research that meets the requirements of policymakers and practitioners, as well as competition for research funding (Brannen, 2005; O’Cathain et al., 2007).

When qualitative and quantitative methods are integrated in a single study, one method usually takes precedence over the other. In such cases, the purpose of the study, the rationale for using mixed methods, and the ratio of each method determine whether and how the empirical results are to be integrated (Östlund et al., 2011). Mixed methods can also help highlight similarities and differences between certain aspects of a phenomenon (Bernardi et al., 2007). Mixed methods research provides a more balanced perspective, joining the benefits of both methods, as well as compensating the weaknesses resulting from a single method (McKim, 2017).

This robust approach takes advantage of the strengths of both types of research. In Study 1, a survey was conducted on the attitude of the scientific community in the Republic of Moldova regarding Open Science. In Study 2, semi-structured interviews were carried out, gathering in-depth perspective on the beliefs and attitudes of political decision-makers and administrative and management staff of research and university institutions, regarding the adoption of Open Science policies in the Republic of Moldova, as well as the actions needed to create a favorable framework for open research. This allowed for the quantitative measures for the adoption and use of Open Science practices, as well as the exploration of policy actions that could potentially influence the expansion of these practices.

Quantitative data collection took place from October 25, 2021 until December 6, 2021, using specialized software (SurveyMonkey) to develop the questionnaire, collect data, and analyze results. The purpose of the quantitative study was to understand the attitude regarding Open Science practices and adoption of a national policy on Open Science in the Republic of Moldova. The questionnaire had five sections with 27 questions. For this article, only the opinions of the scientific community from the Republic of Moldova regarding the Open Science Policy are analyzed and presented.

Qualitative data collection took place from December 2021 until April 2022, applying the interview protocol. Before the study, the respondents were notified and appropriate meeting place and time were agreed upon.

Semi-structured interview questions were sent by e-mail. E-mail communications are emerging as an alternative method for conducting interviews in qualitative research (Dahlin, 2021; Walker and Baxter, 2019). While a mixed mode interviewing strategy should always be considered when possible, semi-structured e-mail interviewing can be a viable alternative to face-to-face interviews, especially when time or financial constraints are barriers to an investigation (Meho, 2006, p. 1293). There are a number of advantages of using an e-mail interview rather than a face-to-face interview (Fritz and Vandermause, 2018; Hamilton and Bowers, 2006; Hawkins, 2018; Hunt and McHale, 2007; Oltmann, 2016): cost, practical alternative to overcome geographic barriers, financial concerns, range of participants, access to participants, time for reflection, saying things that would not be said face-to-face, working with a set of interviews simultaneously, rapport, overcoming interviewer effects.

In particular, the interview protocol addressed the four main dimensions generally linked to Open Science:

Changes in terms of Open Science policy for the alignment of the Republic of Moldova with the EU provisions on Horizon Europe Programme and the European Research Area.

For each of these dimensions, the interview protocol included open-ended questions on the understanding and opinion of the interviewee, the state of the art, and advantages and problems as perceived by the interviewee. Each interview included particular questions related to the interviewee's Open Science practice.

The interview protocol also included an introductory letter, explaining the content, structure, length, and the actual and future use of the collected data, to fully inform every interviewee on the purpose and requirements of the interview.

NVivo software was used to process interview results.

The first phase of the analysis included reading the answers, highlighting relevant fragments according to the research question, and assigning a code to them based on the content of the fragment. The second phase involved a second analysis, based on the interview answers and the results of the previous analysis. For the second phase, an open coding process using NVivo software was used.

One of the important topics discussed in the framework of the quantitative study concerned Open Science policies or strategies. These documents or directives describe the actions that are focused on promotion of Open Science principles and recognition of Open Science practices. Open Science policies or strategies are usually set by research-performing organizations, research funders, governments, or publishers.

To assess the situation and the opinion of the scientific community and academia on this subject, the respondents were asked whether the institution they are affiliated to has adopted a policy or strategy on Open Science or policies/strategies related to Open Science components. This question collected 522 answers. More than half of the respondents (n = 270; 51.72%) confirmed, and another 15.52% (n = 81) affirmed these documents are under development by the institution. Over a quarter of the respondents (n = 137; 26.25%) were not aware (Figure 1).

Fig. 1:

Respondents who confirmed were asked to specify the types of Open Science policies at the institutional level. Despite 51.72% (n = 270) of respondents answered “yes” to the previous question, only 254 of them specified the exact type of document and the remaining 16 respondents were unable to provide details.

The majority of respondents who answered affirmatively (n = 153, 60.24%) specified an Open Access policy adopted at the institution; more than a third of them (n = 90, 35.43%) were convinced that there is a single policy covering all aspects of Open Science at the institutional level. More than a quarter (n = 71, 27.95%) believed there is a Policy on Open Educational Resources at the organizational (especially, the university) level. A proportion of 17.72% (n = 45) of respondents thought there is a Research Data Management Policy adopted by the institution, and 16.93% (n = 43) believed there is an Open Evaluation Policy. The Open e-Infrastructure Policy was mentioned by 10.63% (n = 27) of the respondents (Figure 2).

Fig. 2:

In fact, at present, the national strategies and policies dedicated to Open Science are not yet developed in the Republic of Moldova. The most relevant national strategic document referring to Open Science was the National Roadmap for the Integration of the Republic of Moldova into the European Research Area for the years 2019–2021 (Government of the Republic of Moldova, 2018). This document provided one of the specific objectives connected to the Priority of the European Research Area, “Optimal circulation, access, and transfer of knowledge,” being mentioned that “for the Republic of Moldova, it is a major priority to contribute to the elaboration of policies for strengthening the link between science and industry and raising the role of research in the public and private sectors in ‘Open Innovations’ and ensuring Open Access to results and scientific services.”

The distribution of responses by organization shows that most institutions have adopted both a policy and strategy covering all aspects of Open Science, as well as separate documents for each aspect, which is not true. This denotes that a significant proportion of the personnel is either not aware of the real situation at the institutional level in terms of promoting and implementing Open Science policies or is not yet familiar with the concept.

Although, the implementation of several international projects (Țurcan and Cojocaru, 2022) has stimulated research institutions and universities of the Republic of Moldova to adopt institutional Open Access policies and institutional strategies on Open Science, currently, 14 institutional policies on Open Access and only three institutional strategies related to Open Science are approved in the Republic of Moldova.

The Open Science movement in the Republic of Moldova has emerged at the institutional level, the champions being the Information Society Development Institute and university libraries, but it is crucial to gain support and promotion from the national decision-makers. In this context, the respondents were asked to assess the importance of having an Open Science policy or strategy at the national level.

Even though a significant proportion of respondents are not yet familiar with the concept, 95.13% (n = 449) of them consider a national Open Science policy or strategy very important (Very important and Important answers) (Figure 3).

Fig. 3:

The small standard deviation value speaks of the uniform opinion of the respondents on this matter (Table 3).

The distribution of responses on the importance of a national Open Science policy or strategy per scientific area reveals that respondents from various areas exhibit interest in this subject (Figure 4).

Fig. 4:

The respondents believed that Open Science is a new model for organizing the research activity, increasing its quality and impact.

Respondents also mentioned the importance of Open Science and Open Science policies. Comments focused on the importance of Open Science include: “only joint efforts, the availability and exchange of knowledge, information and data at a global level can contribute to achieving the strategic priority objectives of the Republic of Moldova” (AMS 7); “adopting the Open Science model would accelerate the development rate of the Republic of Moldova” (AMS 8); “it makes research more effective and credible, also by implementing traditions of collaborative interaction inside the scientific community and in society in general” (PM 2); “could contribute to increased visibility, relevance and impact of the scientific activity” (PM 1); “Open Science adoption could be a decisive factor for the implementation of research results in industry” (PM 3).

Open Science adoption at the level of a national strategic priority could offer a series of benefits, as well as contribute to efficiency of research in the Republic of Moldova.

All interviewees were asked about the expected benefits of Open Science as a strategic priority for the Republic of Moldova (Table 4).

Experts’ opinions were unanimous, supported by the following statements: “Promoting Open Science at the national level would make researchers more accountable towards research and tax-payers” (AMS 6); “Open Science policy can offer many advantages for research, such as faster circulation of scientific ideas or increased collaboration among researchers” (AMS 9); “should lead to a closer collaboration between the science and the industry, ensuring continuous development of the Republic of Moldova from an economic, social, etc. point of view” (PM 4); “it can increase the relevance and impact of scientific activity by facilitating access to research results and publications, boosting the transfer of knowledge to education and industry, creating opportunities for the reuse of research data, but also for a wider involvement of civil society in the decision-making process” (PM 1); “the possibility of integration into macro-level interdisciplinary research and the benefits of reusing existing knowledge and data” (AMS 5). At the same time, “developing an Open Science legal framework” (PM 1) was highlighted as a major priority.

Open Science encompasses various aspects, therefore it was important to establish which of them are better known or considered more valuable by scientific and academic community in the Republic of Moldova.

Four hundred and seventy-two respondents provided their input in terms of key aspects to be taken into account when implementing an institutional Open Science policy or strategy (multiple responses possible). The data presented in Figure 5 shows that over 70% of respondents considered Open Access to publications, educational resources, and research data as the most important Open Science practices. Less than half mentioned the importance of Citizen Science (n = 181, 38.35%), even though the lion's share of research in the Republic of Moldova is funded from the public budget.

Fig. 5:

The analysis and benchmarking regarding the institutional Open Access policies and Open Science strategies (Cheradi et al., 2023) had shown that all 14 institutional policies regulate the self-archiving of publications of scientific and teaching staff in universities and research institutions in institutional repositories with Open Access, as well as stimulate publication in Open Access journals. The institutional Open Access policies declare the storage of all scientific publications developed on the basis of state-funded research projects and grants. However, these policies differ in certain segments, establishing institutional rules for storage, retention, and access to employee publications. The three institutional strategies on Open Science, approved in 2022 within the MINERVA project “Strengthening research management and Open Science capacities of HEIs in Moldova and Armenia” (2018–2022), covered various key components of Open Science. Thus, the Open Science strategies of the Academy of Economic Studies of Moldova, Technical University of Moldova, and State University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Moldova include Open Access, Open Data, Open Evaluation, and Open Science tools. In addition, the strategy of the Technical University of Moldova addresses open education.

In terms of key aspects to be accounted for in a national Open Science policy or strategy, the respondents ranked the issues similar to those for an institutional strategy or policy (Figure 5).

The experts shared the same opinion, underlining that all Open Science components are important “because they contribute to achieving the Open Science goal” (PM 3), as well as “they are interconnected and thus bring more value when they are implemented together” (AMS 5). The expert mentioned the importance of all Open Science components “although some are not applicable to all research areas” (PM 2), still some key components were highlighted, depending on the expert's position and affiliation, for example, “Open Evaluation, Open Education, Research Data Management, Open Access to scientific publications” (PM 2); “Open Access to publications, Research Data Management, FAIR Data, Open Education, Open Evaluation, Citizen Science” (AMS 6); “Open Access to research publications, Research Data Management, data sharing, setting up repositories, Open Education, Open Evaluation, Citizen Science” (AMS 7).

According to the respondents, different stakeholders involved in the research process should be responsible for adopting an Open Science policy or strategy (Figure 6), but primarily it refers to decision-makers at the institution (n = 335, 71.19%) and country (n = 327, 69.28%) levels; researchers (n = 294, 62.29%), and the academia (n = 293, 62.08%) were ranked third and fourth, respectively. This opinion is also validated by the answer to another question, where 90.46% of respondents agreed and fully agreed that a national strategy to support Open Science should be developed by the state. On the other hand, libraries, which are Open Access pioneers in the Republic of Moldova, are positioned at the end, being selected by only 40.89% of the respondents (n = 193).

Fig. 6:

In terms of developing and adopting national and institutional Open Science policies, political decision-makers, as well as the administrative and management staff of universities and research institutions should be held accountable. The experts highlighted: “The policy/policies, as well as the related action plans, should be developed with the involvement of such parties as: Ministry of Education and Research (MER) – the policymaker in education and research; the founding ministries of research and innovation organizations; the Ministry of the Economy, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Regional Development, the Ministry of the Environment – major beneficiaries of the research results, in addition to the founding ministries; the Ministry of Finance – could potentially evaluate if research results are efficiently implemented in economy and the social sector, could assess the potential benefits of Open Science policy adoption, National Agency for Research and Development, National Agency for Quality Assurance in Education and Research, Academy of Sciences of Moldova, the Council of Rectors, the Council of research organisations’ directors; professional associations, NGOs representing the business sector, etc. – as potential beneficiaries of knowledge transfer from the research sector to industry” (PM 1). In particular, it is necessary to attract for Open Science policy development “representatives of the business sector, civil society to ensure a greater impact on the development of the Republic of Moldova” (PM 4), and it is necessary to establish “a national working group under the authority of MER, that will develop policies and action plans, concerned with implementation of all Open Science components” (AMS 5).

Based on the provisions of the Code on science and innovation of the Republic of Moldova (259/2004) and subsequent government decisions, the Ministry of Education and Research is the entity responsible for the development policies in the research sector, which “should be based on the involvement of the entire scientific community, as these regulations target every researcher” (PM 2); however, “high-level political support is mandatory, because these activities require laws to be adopted, funds to be allocated, personnel in various institutions, in order to ensure the feasibility and continuity of processes, including at the implementation level” (AMS 5).

Even though the Open Science movement emerged at the international level about 20 years ago (Budapest Initiative for Open Access, 2002), Open Science principles are being implemented in the Republic of Moldova quite slowly. Aiming to determine the causes of this phenomenon, the respondents were asked to identify the obstacles to Open Science practices (open-ended question). The answers were grouped according to their meaning, and the most frequent reasons (mentioned by five and more respondents) are presented in Figure 7. The figure shows that lack of funding is perceived as the most significant impediment to implementation of Open Science practices. The respondents consider it is imperative for both governments and institutions to fund and adopt better practices aimed at embedding Open Science in the research cycle.

Fig. 7:

All interviewees were asked about the perceived barriers to implementation of Open Science practices in the Republic of Moldova (Table 5).

Interviews have revealed at the moment, it is not possible to effectively implement all Open Science components in Moldova, and “the resistance to change and fear that research results will be plagiarized and IP rights will be infringed” (AMS 6) is perceived as a major problem by many experts. Some of the most frequent financial, legislative, and logistical obstacles mentioned by experts are access to research results, infrastructure, research quality, skills and awareness, interoperability, integration, incentives and rewards, transparency, and others. Some expert opinions regarding the barriers and challenges in transition to Open Science in the Republic of Moldova at the national and institutional levels refer to “low quality of scientific results, [...] scarcity or lack of competent human resources” (AMS 7); “the majority are not aware of the importance of Open Science for the social-economic development of the Republic of Moldova. The worst is that this was not and is not understood by any Government” (PM 1); “researchers’ unwillingness to share their ideas” (PM 4); “lack of a national interest for this initiative” (AMS 5); “researchers’ reluctance to share research results [...] insufficient knowledge of the benefits of Open Science” (AMS 8); “insufficiency of skilled personnel in Open Science practices” (AMS 9); “no efforts made to set up scientific and technological platforms for common use” (PM 2). The experts also pointed out that the biggest barriers to Open Science adoption are the following: “the existing regulatory framework doesn’t provide enough levers to promote the principles of Open Science” (PM 3); “long-term investments in digital infrastructures are missing” (PM 4); “research is insufficiently integrated with the educational and business sectors” (PM 3).

Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed with the transfer of responsibilities regarding Open Science implementation. The answers are presented in Figure 8.

Fig. 8:

The data show that more than 80% of respondents agreed in general with most of the statements, except for the obligation to self-archive publications in repositories, which was supported by 57% of the respondents.

The standard deviations presented in Table 6 show that the most varied responses were generated by the statement regarding the self-archiving of own publications (0.94), compared to the values of the standard deviations for the remaining statements, ranging from 0.67 to 0.79.

As shown, it seems the scientific community and academia in the Republic of Moldova is ready to hand over the responsibilities regarding Open Science adoption to other stakeholders, but is less ready to accept more responsibilities at the individual level.

Another finding of our study referred to the expectation that the researchers have from for state institutions, such as the government, the Ministry of Education and Research, and the National Agency for Research and Development, to set an example in adopting Open Science principles, especially in terms of accessibility of research data and scientific publications, resulting from publicly funded research. The existing Open Access publishing system of publicly funded research results comprises 57 Open Access accredited scientific journals (IDSI, 2022), the provisions of the contract on public funding of research projects (Government of the Republic of Moldova, 2019), as well as access to publications from national, institutional, and thematic repositories (IDSI, n.d.). Unfortunately, this existing system at the national level is not concerned with Open Access to research data or a national or institutional data repository, as part of research infrastructure. The experts acknowledged this situation could be improved significantly: “the availability of national repositories for scientific results and publications would facilitate access to research data [...], would support the identification of trends in the sector, the calculation of certain scientometric estimates, evaluations of research organizations and research and teaching staff, rankings aimed at displaying and boosting research performance” (PM 3); “a single repository with publications of researchers from the Republic of Moldova is needed” (PM 1); “Republic of Moldova should have a single online national platform providing access to all research outputs produced in the country” (AMS 8). At the same time, some experts believe, “it is neither rational nor economically efficient to develop several repositories” (PM 1); “I would rather advocate for Moldova to join a European or international repository, developed with the use of blockchain-like technologies and complying to FAIR principles” (PM 2); “the opportunities to contribute to European and international Open Science movement are currently numerous and open to groups, institutions, even the whole country” (AMS 5).

The interviewees also noted the need of raising awareness and involving all members of the academic community in the implementation of Open Science practices, especially national level decision-makers, to develop the regulatory framework to support the transition toward Open Science. Certain practices are adopted at the institutional level, aimed at developing strategies, action plans on Open Science, funding Open Access publishing, setting up institutional repositories, organizing events promoting Open Science, trainings for researchers, teaching staff and students on Open Science skills, implementing open education components, and so on. However, more concerted efforts are needed, such as “embed Open Science principles in calls for project proposals and during project implementation” (PM 1); “support research projects, which provide for employ transparent research practices and publish results in Open Access” (PM 2); “use open and participatory evaluation procedures” (PM 3); “collaborate closely with the civil society” (AMS 9); “Open Science requires the co-participation of government bodies and institutions in the entire research process” (AMS 5).