The Evolution of the Scientific Publishing System in the Republic of Moldova: Bibliometric Analysis and Implications for Science Policies

Nelly  Țurcan; Rodica Cujba; Vitalie Minciună

Authors

Nelly Țurcan Information Society Development Institute https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8475-0770
Rodica Cujba Information Society Development Institute https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7982-6184
Vitalie Minciună Information Society Development Institute https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4812-8885

Keywords:

scientific publishing, bibliometric analysis, open access, research evaluation, academic policy, digitalization in research

Abstract

This paper examines the evolution of the scientific publishing system in the Republic of Moldova, focusing on the impact of global trends and national science policies. It uses a mixed-methods approach, including literature reviews, policy analysis, and bibliometric data, to assess changes in research output, open access adoption, and the influence of digitalization. The study identifies key challenges and opportunities for enhancing research quality and visibility, providing recommendations for science policies to support scholarly publishing in Moldova and ensure integration into the global scientific community.

References

1. Alwine, J. C., Enquist, L. W., Dermody, T. S., & Goodrum, F. (2021). What is the Price of Science? mBio, 12(2), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.00117-21

2. Anglada, L., & Abadal, E. (2023). Open access: a journey from impossible to probable, but still uncertain. Profesional De La información, 32(1), e320113. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2023.ene.13

3. Baffy, G., Burns, M. M., Hoffmann, B. et al. (2020). Scientific Authors in a Changing World of Scholarly Communication: What Does the Future Hold? American Journal of Medicine, 133(1), 26-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2019.07.028

4. Baptista, M. S., Alves, M. J. M., Arantes, G. M. et al. (2019). Where do we aspire to publish? A position paper on scientific communication in biochemistry and molecular biology. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 52(9), e8935. https://doi.org/10.1590/1414-431X20198935

5. Burgelman, J.-C., Osimo, D., & Bogdanowicz, M. (2010). Science 2.0 (change will happen….). First Monday, 15(7). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v15i7.2961

6. Cristofoletti, E., Salles-Filho, S., Juk, Y., Cabral, B. P., Pinto, K. E. F., Hollanda, S., Graziani, C., & Pereira, C. A. G. (2024). A long and winding road: Research impact evaluation over public policies. Quantitative Science Studies, 6, 194-215. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00345

7. Cujba, R., & Țurcan, N. (2024). The Influence of Global Trends in Scientific Publishing on National Regulations in the Republic of Moldova and on Dissemination of Academic Findings. Journal of Electrical Systems, 20(11s), 2272-2286. https://journal.esrgroups.org/jes/article/view/7748

8. Demeter, M., Jele, A. & Major, Z.B. (2021). The International Development of Open Access Publishing: A Comparative Empirical Analysis Over Seven World Regions and Nine Academic Disciplines. Publishing Research Quarterly, 37, 364-383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-021-09814-9

9. Du, D., Ding, J., Chen, Y., & Liu, C. (2023). The evolution and development landscape of scholarly communication based on the analysis of published articles. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 57(1), 40-56. https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006231196336

10. Duine, M. (2023). Summary Report APE 2023, 10-12 January, Berlin, Germany Berlin Re-Visited: Building Technological Support for Scholarship and Scientific Publishing. Information Services and Use, 44(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-230189

11. Ellis, J., Ellis, B., Tyler, K., & Reichel, M. P. (2021). Recent trends in the use of social media in parasitology and the application of alternative metrics. Current Research in Parasitology & Vector-Borne Diseases, 1, 100013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crpvbd.2021.100013

12. Figueiredo, C., Neves, A. A. B., Pimentel, F., Pimentel, D., Mota-Araujo, H. P., Bem, A. F. D., Neto, B., & McManus, C. (2024). Impact of Open Access Policy on Brazilian Science and Global Trends. Anais Da Academia Brasileira De Ciências, 96(2), e20231068. https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765202420231068

13. Hadad, S., Aharony, N. & Raban, D.R. (2024). Policy shaping the impact of open-access publications: a longitudinal assessment. Scientometrics 129(1), 237-260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04875-3

14. Kamerlin, S. C. L., Allen, D. J., de Bruin, B., Derat, E., & Urdal, H. (2021). Journal Open Access and Plan S: Solving Problems or Shifting Burdens? Development and Change, 52(3), 627-650. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12635

15. Kelly, A. (2020). The History and Future of Scientific Publishing. In: How Scientists Communicate: Dispatches from the Frontiers of Knowledge. Oxford Academic, 10-33. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190936600.003.0002

16. Korytkowski, P., & Kulczycki, E. (2019). Examining how country-level science policy shapes publication patterns: the case of Poland. Scientometrics, 119(3), 1519-1543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03092-1

17. Krawczyk, F., & Kulczycki, E. (2021). How is open access accused of being predatory? The impact of Beall's lists of predatory journals on academic publishing. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(2) art. 102271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102271

18. Liu, Q., & Guo, L. (2024). Transformation and development strategy of digital publishing marketing based on big data and fuzzy control algorithm. Journal of Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering, 24(1), 489-499. https://doi.org/10.3233/JCM-237023

19. Park, J. (2020). Is open peer review, a growing trend in scholarly publishing, a double-edged sword?. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg, 46(5), 299-300. https://doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2020.46.5.299

20. Retteen, A. & Hall-Retteen, M. (2024). Persistent Identifiers and the Next Generation of Legal Scholarship. Law Library Journal, 116(2), 133-158. https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/1994

21. Rosenkrantz, A. B., Ayoola, A., Singh, K., & Duszak Jr, R. (2017). Alternative metrics (“Altmetrics”) for assessing article impact in popular general radiology journals. Academic radiology, 24(7), 891-897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2016.11.019

22. Shapovalov, Y., Shapovalova, M., & Shapovalov, V. (2024). Improving the Impact of Papers by Integrating Local Digital Libraries with ORCID: The Role of ORCID Consortium. In: Faure, E., et al. Information Technology for Education, Science, and Technics. ITEST 2024. Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies, vol. 221. Springer, Cham, 382–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-71801-4_28

23. Singh, M., Prasad, C.P., & Shankar, A. (2021). Publication Charges Associated with Quality Open Access (OA) Publishing and Its Impact on Low Middle Income Countries (LMICs), Time to Reframe Research Policies. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, 22(9), 2743-2747. https://doi.org/10.31557/APJCP.2021.22.9.2743

24. Strielkowski, W., & Chigisheva, O. (2018). Research functionality and academic publishing: Gaming with altmetrics in the digital age. Economics and Sociology, 11(4), 306-316. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2018/11-4/20

25. Švab, I., & Klemenc-Ketis, Z. (2023). New Challenges in Scientific Publications: Referencing, Artificial Intelligence and ChatGPT. Slovenian Journal of Public Health, 62(3), 109-112. https://doi.org/10.2478/sjph-2023-0015

26. Trial, H., & Einsiedler, J. (2024). The future of research dissemination: Innovation in publishing formats. MIT Science Policy Review, 5, 146–159. https://doi.org/10.38105/spr.ex3016cqt0

27. Țurcan, N. (2012). Comunicarea ştiinţifică în contextul accesului deschis la informaţie. CEP USM, Chișinău. https://msuir.usm.md/items/cdb672fa-cd79-4850-84e6-531b2b626667

28. Ţurcan, N., & Cuciureanu, G. (2024). Publications of researchers from the Republic of Moldova in MDPI journals: a bibliometric analysis and associated controversies. In: Akademos, 4(75), 18-30. https://doi.org/10.52673/18570461.24.4-75.01

29. Turki, H., Fraumann, G., Taieb, M., & Aouicha, M. (2023). Global visibility of publications through Digital Object Identifiers. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2023.1207980

30. Weingart, P., & Taubert, N. (2017). The future of scholarly publishing: Open access and the economics of digitisation. African Minds, Cape Town. http://dx.doi.org/10.47622/9781928331537

31. Xu, H., Zou, M., & Liu, W. (2013). A review of scientific publishing platforms. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 411-414, 152-155. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.411-414.152

32. Zhou, Q. (2023). Publications of Biomedical Research: Evolving Landscape and Constant Themes. AMWA, 38(2). https://doi.org/10.55752/amwa.2023.270

33. Zhou, Z. (2020). Future scientific publishing: what should be inherited and changed?. National Science Review, 7(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwz224

The Evolution of the Scientific Publishing System in the Republic of Moldova: Bibliometric Analysis and Implications for Science Policies

Authors

Keywords:

Abstract

References

Downloads

Published

Issue

Section

License

Language

Information