ENHANCING QUALITY AND VISIBILITY OF SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS: BEST PRACTICES AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF NATIONAL REGULATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

IRINA COJOCARU
, Information Society Development Institute Chisinau, Republic of Moldova
ORCID: 0000-0001-5591-422X
Email: irina.cojocaru@idsi.md

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24818/cike2025.108

Pages: 858–867

📄 Download PDF

Abstract

In the world of academic publishing and organising conferences, there is a growing demand for publishers and organisers to follow the rules set out by their own country while also meeting international standards for sharing academic research. The move to digital publishing has created new opportunities for local publishers to be more visible and to have a bigger impact. But many local publishers find it hard to understand the complicated system of indexing databases, permanent identifiers and interoperability protocols. This is a big problem for new research groups who want to create publications that are reliable, easy to find, and can be used in other studies. Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) are becoming more and more important for deciding how well a publication does, but there is a lack of clear guidance on how to use them. The aim of this research is to find and organise the best ways to edit scientific publications so that they meet national and international standards. This will help to improve the quality, visibility and impact of these publications. The study looks at the rules in the Republic of Moldova for evaluating scientific journals and events, and international recommendations for making sure that online content is easy to find. The research identifies the most important requirements for editors: using peer-review processes, adopting modern publishing platforms (OJS), ensuring persistent identifiers (ISSN, DOI), following metadata and interoperability standards (OAI-PMH, OpenAIRE), and providing content in different formats (PDF, HTML, XML, JATS). The study shows how important DOI is for helping researchers to cite each other’s work, tracking how much it is used, and how it fits into the global research system.

 

Keywords: best practices, online visibility, scientific impact, DOI, national regulations, international standards

JEL Classification: I23, O33, L82, C81

References

    1. Boudry, C., & Chartron, G. (2017). Availability of digital object identifiers in publications archived by PubMed. Scientometrics, 110(3), 1453-1469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2225-6
    2. Brase, J., & Farquhar, A. (2011 ). Access to research data. D-Lib Magazine, 17(1/2). https://doi.org/10.1045/january2011-brase
    3. Cyzyk, M., & Choudhury, S. (2008 ). A survey and evaluation of open-source electronic publishing systems. Technical Report, The Sheridan Libraries, Johns Hopkins University.
    4. González-Albo, B., & Bordons, M. (2011). Articles vs. proceedings papers: Do they differ in research relevance and impact? A case study in the Library and Information Science field. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 369-381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.01.011
    5. Haak, L. L., Fenner, M., Paglione, L., Pentz, E., & Ratner, H. (2012 ). ORCID: a system to uniquely identify researchers. Learned Publishing, 25(4), 259-264. https://doi.org/10.1087/20120404
    6. Hendricks, G., Tkaczyk, D., Lin, J., & Feeney, P. (2020 ). Crossref: The sustainable source of community-owned scholarly metadata. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 414-427. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00022
    7. International DOI Foundation. (2019 ). DOI Handbook. https://doi.org/10.1000/182
    8. Klein, M., & Van de Sompel, H. (2022 ). Discovering scholarly orphans using DOIs. Scientometrics, 127, 1545-1563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04289-7
    9. Meadows, A. (2015 ). Beyond open: Expanding access to scholarly content. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 18(3). https://doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0018.301
    10. Meadows, A. (2016 ). Everything you ever wanted to know about ORCID… but were afraid to ask. College & Research Libraries News, 77(1), 23-26. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.77.1.9425
    11. Public Knowledge Project. (2023). OJS usage statistics. https://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs/ojs-usage/
    12. ANACEC (2025) Regulation on assessment, classification and monitoring of scientific journals. Chișinău: National Agency for Quality Assurance in Education and Research.
    13. ANACEC (2025) Regulation on recognition, classification and recording of scientific events. Decision no. 20 of 04.07.2025. Chișinău: National Agency for Quality Assurance in Education and Research.
    14. Stojanovski, J., Petrak, J., & Macan, B. (2015). The Croatian national open access journal platform. Learned Publishing, 28(4), 293-302. https://doi.org/10.1087/20150406
    15. Tennant, J. P., Crane, H., Crick, T., Davila, J., Enkhbayar, A., Havemann, J., Kramer, B., Martin, R., Masuzzo, P., Nobes, A., Rice, C., Rivera-López, B., Ross-Hellauer, T., Sattler, S., Thacker, P. D., & Vanholsbeeck, M. (2019 ). Ten hot topics around scholarly publishing. Publications, 7(2), 34. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7020034
    16. Thomas, W. M., Chen, B., & Clement, G. (2015 ). ORCID identifiers: Planned and potential uses by associations, publishers, and librarians. The Serials Librarian, 68(1-4), 332-341. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2015.1017713
Scroll to Top