Publishing as an Indicator of Scientific Research Quality and Ethics: The Case of Law Journals from Moldova


This paper analyses the way articles are published in scientific journals in the field of law in the Republic of Moldova, including an experiment with a previously published article. Lack of compliance with journal publishing standards, including peer reviewing of articles, leads to the fact that virtually any article can be published. The examined journals do not perform their natural functions, but are rather used by researchers to report that they have scientific outcomes. The study allows us to consider that publishing in scientific journals is an indicator of the quality of scientific research, as well as an indicator of compliance with scientific research ethical principles. Scientific misconduct and lack of scientific meritocracy that are characteristic of some of the post-Soviet science, are very well reflected in the law field in the Republic of Moldova.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. Beall, J. (2015). Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers. Retrieved March 25, 2018 from

  2. Clark, J. (2015). How to avoid predatory journals—a five point plan. BMJ Blog, Jan 19 2015. Retrieved March 28, 2018 from

  3. CNAA, (2016). National Council for Acreditation and Atestation. Ranking of scientific journals from the Republic of Moldova. Retrieved December 04, 2017 from

  4. CNAA, (2017). National Council for Acreditation and Atestation. Theses. Retrieved Dec 04, 2017 from

  5. Colquhoun, D. (2011). Publish-or-perish: peer review and the corruption of science. The Guardian, 05 September 2011. Retrieved December 03, 2017 from

  6. COPE, (2011). Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors. The COPE Council, 7th March 2011. Retrieved Jan 18, 2017 from

  7. COPE, (2015). Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing. COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME, June 2015. Retrieved Jan 18, 2017 from

  8. Dadkhah, M., Borchardt, G., Lagzian, M., et al. (2017). Academic journals plagued by bogus impact factors. Publishing research quarterly,33(2), 183–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hames, I. (2007). Peer review and manuscript management in scientific journals: Guidelines for good practice. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hames, I. (2013). The future of peer review. EASE/ISMTE conference, Blankenberge, p. 23.

  11. Hlipca, P. (2009). The mechanism of state power: history and actuality (in Romanian-Mecanismul puterii în stat: istorie şi actualitate). National Law Journal,1(100), 70–72.

    Google Scholar 

  12. IBN (2017). National bibliometric instrument from the republic of Moldova. Retrieved December 04, 2017 from

  13. Kelly, J., Sadeghieh, T., & Adel, K. (2014). Peer review in scientific publications: Benefits, Critiques and a Survival Guide. EJIFCC,25, 227–243.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kotchoubey, B., Bütof, S., & Sitaram, R. (2015). Flagrant misconduct of reviewers and editor: A case study. Science and Engineering Ethics,21(4), 829–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Moldovan Academy of Sciences (2015). Regulation on the evaluation, classification and monitoring of scientific journals from the Republic of Moldova. Retrieved Feb 01, 2017 from

  16. Nahai, F. (2015). The rise of predatory journals: What difference does it make? Aesthetic Surgery Journal,35(8), 1042–1043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Oldenburg, H. (1665). The introduction. Philosopical Transactions 1: 1–2. Retrieved December 04, 2017 from

  18. Parker, L. D. (2007). Developing research journals and qualitative inquiry: The role of the editorial board. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management,4(3), 168–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Schlicht, E. (2009). Why Journals? RePEc blog. Retrieved December 03, 2017 from

  20. Scimago Journal & Country Rank (2017). Country Rankings. Eastern Europe Law. Retrieved November 24, 2017 from

  21. Smith, R. (1997). Peer review: reform or revolution? BMJ Clinical Research,315, 759–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Solomon, D. J. (2007). The role of peer review for scholarly journals in the information age. Journal of Electronic Publishing (JEP).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ţuţuianu, I. (2010). Regulation of European funds and their importance for candidate countries and EU members (in Romanian - Reglementarea Fondurilor Europene şi importanţa lor pentru ţările candidate şi membre ale Uniunii Europene). National Law Journal,2(113), 50–53.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Van Noorden, R. (2014). Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers. Nature News International Weekly Journal of Science.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Vesnic-Alujevic, L. (2014). Peer Review and Scientific Publishing in Times of Web 2.0. Publishing Research Quarterly,30(1), 39–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ware, M. & Mabe, M. (2015). The STM report. An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing, 4th ed. Netherlands: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers. Retrieved December 04, 2017 from

  27. Xia, J., Harmon, J. L., Connolly, K. G., Donnelly, R. M., Anderson, M. R., & Howard, H. A. (2015). Who publishes in “predatory” journals? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,66, 1406–1417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gheorghe Cuciureanu.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moldoveanu, B., Cuciureanu, G. Publishing as an Indicator of Scientific Research Quality and Ethics: The Case of Law Journals from Moldova. Sci Eng Ethics 26, 1039–1052 (2020).

Download citation


  • Moldovan journals
  • Law
  • Peer review
  • Publishing standards
  • Scientific misconduct
  • Journal functions
  • Predatory publishing