Evaluation and impact of descriptive metadata on academic event management in Ukraine: A quantitative study

Abstract

Objective. The study aims to understand the impact of descriptive metadata in academic events. It focuses on the need for analytical frameworks that consider the events' characteristics and the interests of the participants. Design/Methodology/Approach. The article focuses on academic event management and metadata quality based on user preferences and feedback. It surveyed Ukrainian organizers and scholars between August and October 2022, analyzing the responses of 1,270 participants using descriptive statistics and qualitative analysis in RStudio. Results/Discussion. The survey showed that most (over 84%) of organizers and scholars are dissatisfied with the metadata quality, with a third rating it as very bad. Frequent errors in metadata emphasized the need for better management, including a preference for using identifiers like ORCID and DOI and a preference for open access to information about academic events. Conclusions. The results highlight the importance of developing specialized tools for metadata management and standardization of metadata elements in Ukraine to facilitate organization and participation in academic events at national and international levels. Originality/Value. The study makes an important contribution to understanding descriptive metadata management in academic events in Ukraine, suggesting ways to improve efficiency in this area.

Headnote

ABSTRACT

Objective. The study aims to understand the impact of descriptive metadata in academic events. It focuses on the need for analytical frameworks that consider the events' characteristics and the interests of the participants.

Design/Methodology/Approach. The article focuses on academic event management and metadata quality based on user preferences and feedback. It surveyed Ukrainian organizers and scholars between August and October 2022, analyzing the responses of 1,270 participants using descriptive statistics and qualitative analysis in RStudio.

Results/Discussion. The survey showed that most (over 84%) of organizers and scholars are dissatisfied with the metadata quality, with a third rating it as very bad. Frequent errors in metadata emphasized the need for better management, including a preference for using identifiers like ORCID and DOI and a preference for open access to information about academic events.

Conclusions. The results highlight the importance of developing specialized tools for metadata management and standardization of metadata elements in Ukraine to facilitate organization and participation in academic events at national and international levels.

Originality/Value. The study makes an important contribution to understanding descriptive metadata management in academic events in Ukraine, suggesting ways to improve efficiency in this area.

Keywords: academic events; conference management; descriptive metadata; Ukrainian legislation.

1. INTRODUCTION

Academic events (AEs) are crucial in disseminating scholarly knowledge and facilitating information exchange, networking, and collaboration among researchers. This study emphasizes the importance of qualitatively assessing metadata to document these events. The current research landscape is experiencing a surge in data volume due to improved recording methods, complex simulations, and the correlation of heterogeneous data sources. As the data complexity increases, the need for a specific and suitable data description becomes paramount. The existing data processing methods are reaching their capacity limit necessitating novel approaches for managing newer, more complex data. Hillmann and Westbrooks (2004) emphasize that metadata is vital for cataloging, retrieving, and managing academic information, ensuring accessibility and value for diverse stakeholders. Gamble and Goble (2011) stress the responsibility of organizers in implementing parameters for the quality of AEs, considering quality a critical element in science. Academic conferences are viewed as communities contributing to ongoing professional development, requiring organizers to go beyond traditional formats. Examining the opinions of academic event organizers and participants on metadata for AEs is crucial for assessing event quality from different perspectives. The key to findability is metadata, essential for accessibility in research institutions, where responsibilities include collecting, managing, preserving, and disseminating information. Open standards, protocols, formats, and technologies should be employed, and institutions must ensure high data quality through curation. The development of scientific metadata for AEs is an important element of the country's research infrastructure. Unified metadata simplifies the processes of aggregating and collecting information on AEs, helps automate registration processes, and simplifies searches for Ukrainian and foreign researchers. On the other hand, the system will serve as a tool to check providers of AEs, which will help protect scientists from participating in unfair "predatory" events. When developing the system, special attention should be given to the platform's compatibility (FAIR principles) (Hauschke et ak, 2021). In conclusion, this study emphasizes the pivotal role of metadata in enhancing the quality, accessibility, and overall effectiveness of AEs in the evolving landscape of scholarly research.

In Ukraine, the science and education sector is undergoing substantial modernization driven by legislative initiatives to enhance the scientific process and elevate the research-specialist training and research standards. The need for mechanisms enabling remote access to databases and information resources has become a crucial development direction. Amidst Ukraine's integration into the international scientific community and the national plan for open science development (Government of Ukraine, 2022), effective organization and conduct of AEs are gaining prominence. This study focused on the qualitative registration and evaluation of AEs, emphasizing the optimal use of metadata, which is in line with the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA, 2017). The evaluation of AEs should encompass quantitative and qualitative indicators reflecting the achievement of event goals and their impact on the academic community. Driscoll and Kraaykamp (2019) highlighted the necessity of developing and applying integrated methodologies for evaluating AEs based on their multidimensionality and contextual relevance.

This research analyses necessary descriptive metadata and qualitative characteristics for evaluating AEs, specifically examining the preferences and practices of organizers and researchers in Ukraine. This study aimed to identify the approaches, complexities, and needs of key stakeholders-event organizers and researchers involved in AEs-for forming a unified and effective system of AE registration in Ukraine. Based on the methodological framework proposed by Denzin and Lincoln (2011) and Flick (2018), this study seeks to improve the quality and accuracy of metadata for AEs. This study addresses current challenges in AE management and contributes to the development of better curation methods, enhancing the understanding of key requirements and preferences of academic event participants for improved effectiveness in Ukraine. Therefore, researchers at different stages of their scientific activity need access to information about AEs relevant to their research interests and areas of research. Currently, there is no unified database of AEs in Ukraine, and information about conferences is usually posted on the websites of the organizing institutions. In this situation, searches relevant AEs is time-consuming. In addition, the lack of control and verification of AE organizers contributes to the creation and functioning of so-called "predatory" conferences (Auhunas et ak, 2022).

This study explored ways to improve the structure and use of metadata for identifying AEs. The main focus was to assess satisfaction with the existing registries for AEs and to identify opportunities for improving the quality of these events in Ukraine based on the opinions and requests of AE organizers and scholars. The main methodology of the study was quantitative analysis using an anonymous survey to assess descriptive AE metadata in Ukraine among AE scholars and organizers. This work also aimed to improve the quality of AE organization and planning and automation of AE registration processes in the country.

The study questions address the following research questions:

RQi: What is the current state of academic event metadata in Ukraine?

RQ2: What are the key priorities of organizers and scholars of AEs in the context of metadata standardization in Ukraine?

RQ3: What methods and tools for collecting and analyzing AEs do organizers and researchers prefer?

RQ4: What are the requirements for metadata in different aspects of AEs?

This study is structured as follows: The introductory section overviews AEs in Ukraine, delving into data management and the broader academic landscape. The sections "Ukrainian legislation on academic events" and "Academic events management" explore the structure and development of AE management in Ukraine, including an analysis of the legislative framework governing AEs. The "Methodology" section details the research methods employed, while the "Results" section presents the primary data collected from the questionnaire survey. The "Discussion and Conclusion" section examines the study's key findings and draws overarching conclusions. Considering Ukraine's unique cultural and scientific characteristics, this study emphasizes the need for special attention to national and international standards in the metadata of AEs within the country.

2. ACADEMIC EVENTS IN UKRAINE: A BRIEF OVERVIEW

2.1. Ukrainian legislation on academic events

The legislative framework governing AEs in Ukraine is characterized by targeted, specific regulations that address key aspects of the field. Rather than encompassing a broad spectrum, these legal documents, primarily attachments, concentrate on distinct activity segments in the science and education domain. The foundation of Ukraine's legislative system for science and education relies on pivotal laws and regulations that delineate standards, strategies, and control mechanisms. This frameworkplaces special emphasis on laws guiding the organization and execution of scientific conferences and seminars, reflecting the evolving legislative landscape tailored to contemporary academic demands.

The Law of Ukraine "On Scientific and Scientific-Technical Activities" (No. 848-VIII, 26.11.2015) (Official Bulletin of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, 2016) stands as a cornerstone legislative piece shaping the country's scientific and technical sector. This law significantly influences the orchestration of AEs, playing a pivotal role in advancing scientific progress. It covers several crucial areas: facilitating scientific travel, providing financial support for research endeavors, and offering grant support via the National Research Foundation of Ukraine, emphasizing the significance of these events for fostering scientific development and dissemination. Moreover, the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine (MESU) issued directives, such as the communication outlining plans for organizing AEs in 2015 (Institute for Educational Content Modernization), in compliance with the "Higher Education" Law (Official Bulletin of the Verkhovna Rada, 2014). This initiative ensures the participation rights of students and young scientists in congresses, forums, and conferences, detailing the specific requirements for inclusion in these events. The Ministry's guidelines also include instructions on organizing and conducting these events, addressing financial aspects, and actively engaging educational institutions, students, and young scientists. As per the Ministry's order, the requirements for dissertations mandate a detailed appendix listing the author's publications and the nature of their participation in AEs. However, a challenge arises as some researchers participate nominally in conferences by submitting abstracts without actual physical presence, potentially compromising the validation of their research. Clarifications on the mode of participation are necessary for the dissertation defense process.

Furthermore, while the cabinet of ministers in Ukraine has introduced criteria for awarding academic degrees, there remains ambiguity regarding the recognition of publications in international AEs (Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, 2017). Equating publications in Ukrainian scientific journals to those in foreign journals for dissertation evaluation purposes has been proposed but lacks comprehensive guidelines. Regulations, such as the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 1187, set conditions for educational activities demanding scholarly productivity, including publications related to conference participation. Additionally, credits are assigned for participation and publication at conferences, workshops, and similar events, highlighting the government's acknowledgment of such academic engagements (National Agency of Ukraine on Civil Service, 2019). In healthcare, Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 725 mandates continuing professional development for healthcare professionals (Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, 2021). This requires providers to design curriculum specifics, outlining competencies, event structures, and control measures for educational events, in addition to scientific conferences, to foster lifelong professional growth among healthcare practitioners.

According to the order of the MESU (No. 40, 12.01.2017) "On Approval of Requirements for the Preparation of a Dissertation" (Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine 2017), dissertations should contain an appendix that lists the author's publications and describes in detail the examination of the research results. The appendix should include the names, places, and dates of relevant AEs, such as conferences, congresses, symposiums, workshops, and schools, as well as the character of the author's participation. This requirement extends section 3.4.1.8 of the Requirements for the Preparation of Dissertations and Dissertation Abstracts (Bulletin of the Higher Attestation Commission of Ukraine, No. 9-10, 2011), which obliges applicants to list the AEs where their dissertation research was presented. However, it should be noted that many researchers, especially at conferences, participate only nominally, submitting abstracts and not being physically present at them, thus not confirming the validity of their research. Consequently, the requirement to indicate the mode of participation (physical presence, virtual, with or without actual presentation) is relevant. However, how this will be considered in the dissertation defense process has yet to be determined (Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine 2017).

In addition, in the draft resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, "On Approval of the Procedure for Awarding Academic Degrees" (Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, 2017), no criteria for the approval of scientific results were initially established. However, the current version (Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, 2013) provides mandatory confirmation of the dissertation content at various AEs, including conferences and workshops. In addition, the preliminary requirements for the submission of doctoral dissertations are outlined, including the publication of a certain number of articles in peer-reviewed journals indexed in global multidisciplinary databases such as Scopus or the Web of Science Core Collection; however, the specifics of publications submitted to international AEs are unclear (Biriukov et at, 2017). Here, the guidelines for academic faculty recognition do not consider participation in AEs as part of the research validation process. This lack of consideration may prevent early career and advanced researchers from participating in AEs. Another proposal of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, 2016) is to equate publications in Ukrainian scientific journals included in international scientific databases, as recommended by the National Agency for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, with publications in foreign scientific journals on the subject of the dissertation, including those presented at international conferences.

Overall, Ukraine's legislative landscape, while emphasizing certain aspects of AEs, faces challenges in evaluating the true impact of participation in AEs for research validation across various domains. Clarifications and streamlined guidelines are necessary to effectively implement and recognize academic engagement.

2.2. Academic events management in Ukraine

The Ukraine has an extensive system of registered AEs maintained by various official institutions holding relevant registries. Every year, the country hosts hundreds of conferences, workshops, congresses, and symposiums, many organized with the support of key scientific and educational organizations. Among them are the MESU, the Ministry of Health of Ukraine (MHU), and the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (NASU), which are important in developing plans, registries, and strategies for such events. It should be noted that until 2015, one of the leading providers of registered AEs was the Ukrainian Institute of Scientific and Technical Expertise and Information (UkrISTEI)·.

The management of the registered AEs in Ukraine is shown schematically in Figure 1. There are four main plans for organizing AEs in Ukraine: (1) Plans related to scientific conferences and workshops on higher education and science implemented under the MESU. This area covers a wide range of topics relevant to the needs of the educational sector and the scientific community. (2) Plans for international and national scientific conferences for higher education students, postgraduate students, and young scientists. These events include congresses, forums, conferences, and workshops to support and develop young scientists, Ph.D. students, and students. (3) A list of congresses, symposia, and scientific conferences supported by the MHU. These events are important for developing medical science and healthcare in the country. (4) The list of AEs that were available in the database "Scientific and Technical Events of Ukraine" was active until 2015. This database provides valuable information about various scientific and technical events in the country. These four approaches to organizing AEs are key in coordinating and supporting scientific activities in Ukraine, stimulating knowledge exchange, and promoting professional growth.

Every year, at the beginning of September, the MESU publishes an official call to create a list of scientific conferences related to higher education and science. Higher education institutions and research institutions under the jurisdiction of the MESU and the National Academies of Sciences are required to submit information about their planned AEs for the next year. This information is submitted electronically (in doc. format) and on paper. To create this register, the staff of the State Scientific Institution "Institute for Educational Content Modernization" (IECM) perform thorough manual work to collect and process the submitted data. As a result of their efforts, a detailed register of planned AEs was generated and published electronically (in pdf. format) on their official website, providing an important resource for coordinating and planning research activities in the educational and scholarly community of Ukraine.

The registers of AEs compiled in Ukraine include two key sections: the first is dedicated to national scientific conferences, and the second to international scientific workshops aimed at higher education students and young researchers. These registers, which are in PDF format, are regularly published on the official website of the IECM. In the general structure of scientific conferences on higher education and science in the MESU system, international and all-Ukrainian AEs are distinguished separately. A study of international conferences showed that the most common formulations of the types of conferences used in the titles are scientific and practical, scientific and technical, and scientific (Biryukov et al., 2017). Moreover, information about national conferences and international conferences is separated. It includes descriptive metadata such as the conference's title, the person responsible for its organization, address, phone number, e-mail, venue and date, and number of participants. Although the existing AE registries are important resources, they have limitations, such as the lack of filtering functions to search for criteria such as discipline or format (hybrid, online, or face-to-face). In addition, the registries lack hyperlinks to AE websites, which could allow interested parties to obtain more detailed information about the events. Recommendations on the procedure for organizing and conducting international and national scientific workshops include the following: "An international conference is held in cooperation with foreign academic organizations or institutions that are part of the event's co-organizers. There were no fewer than five participating countries, and 100 or more participants were included. The conference languages used are Ukrainian and foreign. The national conference is held by the common efforts of national higher education institutions and covers all regions of Ukraine. The number of participants was 100 participants or more. The language of the conference was Ukrainian. These events can be held physically and virtually" (Biriukov et al., 2017).

The second provider of AEs is the Ministry of Health of Ukraine and the National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine. Scientific institutions and universities (registered providers) submit events to the Administrator at the beginning of September annually to be included in the List of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) events. The registration of activities is carried out by the Provider by filling out a Google form (Biryukov et al., 2017). This is in accordance with the instructions developed by the Ministry of Health for the "Center for Testing of Professional Competence of Specialists with Higher Education in the fields of Medicine and Pharmacy at the Ministry of Health of Ukraine" (Testing Board·). The Testing Board processes the information received by the institution's staff. It creates an electronic public Google Excel file publicly available on the Testing Board website and updated accordingly during the year (Ministry of Health of Ukraine). The register of AEs includes the following descriptive metadata: registration number of the provider; information on the possibility/impossibility of awarding points; event number; the form of participation; event status; type of event; number of CPD points; event topic; event start date; event end date; medical specialty; pharmacy specialty; specialties of junior specialists with medical education; link to register for the event; the name of the contact person of the provider responsible for organizing and conducting the event; phone number of the contact person of the provider who is responsible for organizing and holding the event; location (exact address) of the event; and a link to the provider's website where information about the event is posted.

Information about each academic event for which healthcare professionals are credited with CDP points must be posted separately on the provider's official website in the form developed by the MHU. After checking the information about the CDP event on the Provider's official website provider, the testing board assigned a structured registration number to each CDP event, ensuring its uniqueness within the current year. Each event for which healthcare professionals are awarded CDP points is registered separately. Certificates are issued by the Provider upon completion of the CDP event. The certificate contains the following descriptive metadata: the full legal name of the Provider (according to the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, Individual Entrepreneurs and Public Organizations); the type of CDP activity; the topic of the CDP activity; medical/ pharmaceutical specialties; the number of CDP points; the date of the CDP activity; the certificate number; the signature; and the name of the Provider (Ministry of Health of Ukraine).

Following the established requirements of the MHU, a legal entity that intends to be a provider of CDP events for medical and pharmaceutical professionals for which points are awarded must register and collect the supporting documents for this as needed: Application in electronic form (certified by electronic signature). An extract from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, Individual Entrepreneurs, and Public Organizations with a complete list of economic activities. Regulations on evaluating continuing professional development events for signs of academic integrity and compliance with the principles of evidence-based medical/pharmaceutical/rehabilitation practice, approved by the Provider. Methodology for assessing healthcare professionals' acquired knowledge, competencies, and practical skills approved by the Provider (Testing Board). The administrator submits information about the Provider to the CDP System and assigns a registration number to the Provider.

Until 2015, in Ukraine, there was another provider of registered AEs, UkrISTEI, whose task was to create a base for the formation of national information resources on scientific, technical, and innovation activities and access them and to build a system of information and analytical services for users of all levels-from the state to the student level. UkrISTEI registered scientific and technical events-scientific, scientific, and practical symposiums; congresses; conferences; workshops; and meetings planned to be held in Ukraine in the current and next years-and created the database "Scientific and Technical Events of Ukraine" based on this information.

The database was created based on the results of the annual registration and scheduling of scientific and technical events (ESTs) held in Ukraine by ministries, departments, and institutions of the National Academy of Sciences and other organizations since 2005. The information was systematized according to the Interstate Rubric of Scientific and Technical Information, which included a multilevel indexing system. The search engine allowed searching by topic, heading, type, type of academic event, venue, etc. Information about AEs was posted on the UkrISTEI website (Ukrainian Institute of Scientific and Technical Expertise and Information). Based on the registration results, UkrISTEI also issued a quarterly newsletter titled "Plan of scientific, technical symposiums, congresses, conferences, workshops in Ukraine". Currently, there is no database on AEs.

Thus, today, there are no systems that automate the collection of information about such events through unique identifiers, although they are important components of scientific activity. Additionally, it is common for websites (or website pages) containing information about AEs to cease functioning after it has been held. In addition, the most common forms of sharing information about conferences are PDFs and docs, which are not machine-readable, and information about AEs is not presented in a standardized form. However, the usability of organizing such a process is highly questionable regarding rationality and convenience. First, the data from these registries cannot be reused (FAIR principles) (Hauschke et at, 2021); second, it is inconvenient for scholars to search for the desired academic event by their profile and other filters (e.g., organizer, scientific field, date, venue, and other important criteria). Third, there is no possibility for scientists to import data from such registers into their scientific profiles, i.e., there is no active system of permanent identifiers. Fourth, institutions cannot add to the registers of the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine during the year or have a complicated process of time-consuming and time-consuming collection of documents for additional registration of AEs. Although there are conference registries in Ukraine, not all influential conferences are included in these lists. Thus, an important step for Ukraine to study the necessary metadata of AEs and their decision-making quality indicators, which will be conducted following the standards of quality, transparency, and integrity that characterize legitimate and authoritative conferences, as well as the need to develop a single point of registration of AEs and providers as one of the structural modules of the Ukrainian Scientific Information System "URIS" (Kaliuzhna and Auhunas, 2022).

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Data collection method

Based on quantitative research methods, including surveys and data analysis (Denzin and Lincoln, 2011), this study aimed to explore how organizers and scholars evaluate the current descriptive metadata system and its impact on academic event management in Ukraine. This research is simple descriptive research conducted using a questionnaire survey method. Open-ended and closed-ended questions, multiple-choice questions, and 5-point Likert scale questions were developed as data collection instruments. Respondents were informed about the purpose of the survey and how the results would be used. It was emphasized that their participation was completely optional and that their comments would be unanimous and confidential. This research utilized a quantitative approach to study the descriptive metadata of AEs. A quantitative approach is used to determine the significance of individuals or groups, such as organizers of AEs and participants, in those events (Creswell et at, 2007).

To engage participants in this study, a purposive sampling strategy was used. As elucidated by Creswell et at, (2007), this targeted approach entails the intentional selection of individuals or groups based on their specific knowledge and expertise related to the subject being investigated. This study concentrates on two key demographic topics: those who organize AEs and those scholars with substantive experience participating in such events. Participants were recruited through two main strategies. The first involved the use of a database of E-mails related to AEs, which were imported from national conference registries for the last five years and published on the portal of the State Scientific Institution "Institute of Education Content Modernization" (Institute for Educational Content Modernization) and the website of the State Non-Profit Enterprise Testing Board for Professional Competence Assessment of Higher Education Trainees in Medicine and Pharmacy at the Ministry of Public Health of Ukraine (Testing Board). The second strategy involved using the information channel of the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine, which distributed an information letter about the questionnaire to 421 universities under its jurisdiction. The open data platform Unified State Electronic Database on Education (USEDE) (Unified state electronic database on education) was also used to collect the electronic addresses of universities.

The sample consisted of 543 conference organizers and 727 scholars, categorized as organizers of AEs and academic participants. Invitations sent between August 1 and August 15, 2022, included project details, Google Form Survey links, research objectives, data privacy information, and participation benefits. An anonymous online survey from August to October 2022 through Google Forms sought participation based on implied consent upon survey commencement. To ensure diverse insights, a maximum of five responses per educational institution were anticipated from both organizers and attendees. The anonymity of the respondents was maintained to safeguard their data.

3.2. Survey questionnaire

The survey, available in Ukrainian, was standardized for both organizers and scholars. Participants selected their role at the survey's outset, facilitating subsequent cross-group analysis. The comprehensive questionnaire consisted of 32 questions, encompassing demographic information, professional background, satisfaction with the current metadata quality, and suggestions for improvement. Of these, 21 questions, primarily focused on closed-ended queries, were subjected to analysis.

Structured into three sections, the questionnaire included six questions about demographic data, covering gender, position, research interests, event participation frequency, preferred format, and participant roles. The second section, comprising eight questions, utilized Likert-scale queries to gauge the current state of the descriptive metadata and required registration data. The third section (6 questions) also employed Likert scales to assess event quality and improvement strategies within the Ukrainian context. The discipline classification adhered to the official Ukrainian list and was aligned with the International Standard Classification of Education (Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, 2015), as shown in Table 2.

3.3. Data analysis method

Data management, analysis, and graphical representation were performed using Microsoft Excel 2016 version 16.0.5422.100 and RStudio (Open Source Edition) version 2023.09.1 (Franklin et at, 2021) with the data visualization libraries ggplot (Wickham, 2016) and reshape2 (Larsson and Gustavsson, 2018; Larsson and Gustafsson, 2018), The data were initially collected in an Excel spreadsheet, cleaned using OpenRefine version 3.7.3 (OpenRefine, 2023) and subsequently converted to RStudio software for statistical data. This study used descriptive statistical analysis and visualization to process the quantitative data collected and the data obtained using a 5-point Likert scale (Mirahmadizade, (2018). For categorical variables, descriptive statistics are presented in the form of numbers and percentages. The chi-square test (Adesola and Musa, 2017) was used to identify relationships or significant differences between categorical variables and the percentages presented to determine the statistical significance of differences in the distribution of responses between organizers and scholars. The chi-square statistic and the contribution of each question category to the overall statistic were calculated using the following formula:

(ProQuest: ... denotes formula omitted.)

where "Observed" is the observed value; "Expected" is the expected value.W

The significance level was set at 0.05, with p-values less than 0.05 indicating the presence of statistically significant differences between groups. A heatmap displaying statistically substantial p values was generated to visualize the results, allowing visualization of the contribution of each category to the overall chi-square statistic for the two study groups. Bright colors on the heatmaps indicate a more significant contribution to the chi-square statistic, highlighting the categories with the most significant differences between groups. In comparison, darker shades reflect a smaller contribution.

4. RESULTS

4.1. Demographics and respondents' profiles

Table 1 shows the demographic and professional profiles of the respondents, comprising 543 organizers and 727 scholars, for a total of 1,270 respondents. The sex distribution revealed a significant prevalence of females in both groups, with 64.02% (п=81з) of the total sample being female. Most organizers were female (64.09%; n=348), while 63.96% 61=465) were female. Public universities are more prominently represented, with 199 respondents compared to 54 from private institutions. Regarding professional positions, organizers were primarily associate professors (52.30%, n=284), department heads (20.81%, п=из), and research assistants (n=72). In contrast, scholars are predominantly research assistants (44.98%, n=327), associate professors (19.94%, n=i45), and heads of departments (18.29%, n=i33%). Other roles, including administration, PhD students, and employees from other departments, are less represented.

Table 2 presents an in-depth analysis of the distribution of academic disciplines among two respondent categories: organizers and scholars. The study included 1,270 respondents, comprising 543 organizers and 727 scholars. In the "ars and humanities" category, organizers represent 1.84%, and scholars 5.91%, with an overall representation of 4.17%. The notable difference between the groups is underscored by a p-value of 0.0003. In "education," 22.65% of the organizers were represented, compared to only 6.46% of the scholars, resulting in a combined percentage of 13.39%. This significant disparity is highlighted by a p-value of less than 0.0001. For "social sciences, journalism, and information," organizers account for 18.78%, and scholars account for 20.08%, leading to a total representation of 19.53%. The p-value of 0.5637 suggested no significant difference between the categories. In the "Business, Management, and Law" field, 15.47% of the organizers and 13.76% of the scholars participate, up to 14.49%, with a p-value of 0.3905 indicating no significant difference. In "science, mathematics, and statistics," organizers composed 8.29%, and scholars 15.41%, totaling 12.36%. A p-value of 0.0001 indicated a significant difference. "Information Technology" shows nearly equal representation in both groups, with 4.05% of organizers and 3.99% of scholars, up to 4.02%. A p-value of 0.9552 indicated no significant difference. For "engineering, manufacturing, and construction," organizers and scholars account for 7.73% and 14.03%, respectively, with a combined percentage of 11.34%. A p-value of 0.00 points to a significant difference. In "Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries, and Veterinary," both categories showed limited representation (1.66% organizers, 3.30% scholars), totaling 2.60%. The p-value of 0.0685 suggested a borderline significant difference. "Healthcare and Social Security" comprises 9.76% of organizers and 7.02% of scholars, amounting to 8.19%, with a p-value of 0.0775, indicating an insignificant difference. "Security and Defense" included 7.00% of the organizers and 5.09% of the scholars, for 5.91%. A p-value of 0.1534 indicates no significant difference. Finally, in the "Services" sector, 2.76% of organizers and 4.95% of scholars are represented, for a combined percentage of 4.02%. The p-value of 0.0493 suggested no significant difference between the groups. Overall, this analysis reveals distinct variations in the distribution of academic disciplines among organizers and scholars, with some disciplines showing significant differences while others demonstrating similar levels of representation across both categories.

Table 3 outlines the distinct roles of AEs, with organizers primarily occupying exclusive leadership roles, including deputy chairs (24.68%, n=i34), contact persons (18.05%, n=g8), and responsible executives (15.29%, п=8з). Scholars predominantly engaged as participants (58.46%, n=425) and speakers (41.54%, n=3O2). Organizers also serve as chairs (12.52%, n=68) and event moderators (10.31%, n=56). There is a clear distinction of roles; organizers do not participate as speakers or attendees, and scholars do not take up organizational roles, emphasizing the specialized nature of each group's contribution. Organizers also serve as members (12.25%, n=66) and co-organizers (7.00%, п=з8), contributing to the collaborative effort required in organizing successful AEs.

Table 4 reveals the frequency of AE organization and attendance by conference organizers and scholars. This study provides essential insights into the engagement levels of these groups in the academic landscape. A substantial portion of organizers (42.36%, п=2зо) and a considerable number of scholars (29.57%, n=2i5) participate in AEs only once a year, with organizers being more likely to limit their involvement in this frequency (statistically significant, p-value < 0.001). The most common frequency for both groups was 2-5 times a year, with 44.75% of organizers (n=243) and 44.02% of scholars (n=32o) engaging at this rate (no statistically significant difference, p valuero.8386). Scholars (11.00%, n=8o) are more likely than organizers (6.26%, n=34) to participate 5-10 times a year, indicating a higher level of engagement among scholars within this range (statistically significant, p value=0.0047). Furthermore, a greater percentage of scholars (15.41%, n=U2) engage in AEs more than ten times a year than do organizers (6.63%, п=з6), emphasizing the greater tendency among scholars to engage in high event activity (statistically significant, p-value < 0.001).

Table 5 compares the preferred formats for organizing and participating in AEs. Scholars (29.85%, n=2iy) showed a stronger preference for hybrid formats than did organizers (14.36%, n=y8), resulting in an overall preference of 23.22% (n=295), which was a significant difference (p-value <0.001). Offline events are favored more by organizers (20.07%, 11=107) than by scholars (7.29%, n=53), contributing to a total preference of 12.75% (n=i62), with a significant difference (p-value <0.001). Online events are highly favored by both groups, with 65.56% of organizers 61=356) and 62.86% of scholars 61=457) leading to a total preference of 64.01% 61=813). No significant difference was observed between the groups (p value=0.3508), indicating a shared consensus on the convenience and reach of online formats.

4.2. What is the current state of descriptive metadata for academic events in Ukraine?

Figure 2 shows survey results on metadata quality perception in AEs in Ukraine, categorized by organizer and scholar responses. 1,270 respondents were included, with 543 organizers and 727 scholars. For the "Very Bad" rating, 32.52% of respondents 61=413) found the metadata quality to be inferior, with 22.84% of the organizers 61=124) and 39.75% of the scholars 61=289) in agreement. Regarding the "bad" rating, 35.91% of respondents 61=456) perceived the metadata negatively, with 32.78% of the organizers 61=178) and 38.24% of the scholars 61=278) expressing this sentiment. Satisfactory ratings were given by 21.73% of the respondents (n=276), 34.62% of the organizers (n=i88), and 12.10% of the scholars (n=88) found the metadata satisfactory. Additionally, 6.61% of respondents (n=8q) considered the metadata "good," with 5.89% of the respondents being organizers (n=32) and 7.15% being scholars (n=52) holding this opinion. The "Very Good" rating was the least common, with 3.23% of participants (n=4i), comprising 3.87% of organizers (n=2i) and 2.75% of scholars (n=2o), having a highly favorable view of metadata quality in AEs in Ukraine.

Figure 3 shows survey responses on the importance of enhancing metadata quality for organizing and participating in AEs, with a distinction between organizers and scholars. Among 543 organizers, 84.90% (n=q6i) believe it is "very often" important, mirrored by 89.96% of scholars (654 out of 727). Combining "frequently" and "very often," 97.79% of the organizers and 98.35% of the scholars acknowledged the necessity of improving metadata quality. For lower importance ratings, only 1.10% of organizers (n=6) and 1.24% of scholars (n=9) find it "occasionally" important. Even fewer respondents, 0.74% of whom were organizers (n=4) and 0.41% of whom were scholars (п=з), rate this topic as "seldom" important. Only 0.37% of the organizers (n=2) found it "very seldom" important, with no scholars choosing this option. Among the 1,270 respondents, 87.80% (0=1,115) considered it "very often" important, and 10.31% (n=i3i) found it "frequently" important. Those regarding it as important only occasionally, seldom, or very seldom make up a marginal 2.89% of the total responses.

The survey data (see Fig. 4) shows a discrepancy between the perceived importance of metadata quality and the frequency of inaccuracy among scientific professionals. Approximately 40.70% (п=221/54з) of the organizers and 38.93% (n=283/727) of the scholars rarely experienced metadata problems. Episodic inaccuracies were reported by 22.65% ^=123/543) of the organizers and slightly more by 26.00% (n=i8g/727) of the scholars, indicating the constant concern of a significant minority. Moreover, 25.05% ^=136/543) of the organizers and 21.73% (11=158/727) of the scholars frequently encountered inaccuracies, implying that a quarter of the respondents had recurring problems related to metadata quality. Although less common, 3.87% (n=2i/543) of the organizers and 6.60% ^=48/727) of the scholars regularly encountered these problems. Among the overall pool of respondents (n=i27o), 39.69% ^=504/1270) rarely encountered inaccuracies, 24.57% 01=312/1270) did so occasionally, 23.15% 01=294/1270) encountered them frequently, and a remarkable 5.43% (n=69/1270) encountered them very frequently.

Figure 5 shows data on the perceived difficulty of collecting and managing academic event metadata by two distinct groups: organizers and scholars. A substantial proportion of both groups found managing metadata to be easier, with 43.46% 61=236/543) of organizers and 43.88% (n=319/727) of scholars rating it as "very easy." Additionally, 22.28% (121/543) of the organizers and a smaller percentage (6.19%; 11=45/727) of the scholars found it "Easy". Conversely, 11.05% (n=60/543) of the organizers and 10.59% (11=77/727) of the scholars found it "very difficult" to manage metadata. A further 17.50% 61=95/543) of the organizers and 15.96% (n=i 16/727) of the scholars found it "difficult". The option "moderate" reversed the pattern, with a lower percentage of organizers (5.71%; n=3i/543) than did the other options (23.38%; ^170/727). Overall, 43.70% 61=555/1270) of the respondents perceived metadata management as "very easy," and 13.07% 61=166/1270) perceived it as "easy." Among those findings, 15.83% 61=201/1270), 16.61% 61=211/1270), and 10.79% 61=137/1270) were "moderate", "difficult", or "very difficult", respectively.

4.3. What are the key priorities of academic event organizers and scholars in the context of descriptive metadata standardization in Ukraine?

Figure 6 shows the survey results for the five most common metadata fields that organizers and scholars consider important for academic events (AMs). The event description was a priority for 14.04% (n=427) of the organizers and 10.70% (n=324) of the scholars, for a combined total of 12.38% (n=75i). Event field and event type are considered important, with organizers rating event field at 13.91% (n=423) and scholars rating event type at 13.78% 01=417). The event website is more important to scholars (14.97%, n=453) than organizers (7.14%, n=2i7). The personality of the event organizer had an overall importance of 11.70% (n=7io) for both groups. The scientific scope of the event is crucial, especially for organizers (13.05%, n=397), while scholars give it less importance (1.39%, n=42). The event's location was more important to scholars (7.27%, n=22o) than to organizers (4.41%, n=i34), possibly reflecting the economic considerations of scholars attending the event.

Figure 7 shows a heat map showing the results of a survey of respondents on the question, "What are the five most important metadata points for academic events, in your opinion (multiple choice)?" The data show that the most important metadata for both groups of respondents, organizers, and scholars is "Registration deadlines," with chi-square values of 142.39 and 143.05, respectively. These values are highlighted in red, indicating their particular importance and strong influence on respondents' choices. In addition, the "Website" metadata also had high values for both groups (42.01 for organizers and 42.21 for scholars), indicating the significant importance of online resources for event information. Other metadata such as Venue, Participation Fee, Field, External Links, Event Type, Event Subject, Event Description, and Event Acronym show moderate chi-square values ranging from о. 17 to 19.21. These results, highlighted by lighter shades of yellow, suggest that while these aspects are relevant, they are not as critical as the "Registration deadline." The "event organizer" metadata had the lowest chi-square values (0.83) for both groups.

Figure 8 shows the data on the perceived importance of different metadata for academic events with funding. Both organizers and scholars preferred metadata related to formal agreements with government authorities and reputable institutions: 35.91% (n=i95) of organizers and 36.73% (n=267) of scholars, for a total of 36.38% (n=462). The emphasis on free events was greater among scholars (30.40%, n=22i) than among organizers (15.10%, n=82), with a total value of 23.86% 61=303). Organizers considered nationality more important (16.21%, n=88) than scholars did (9.22%, n=67), and scholars valued autonomy and independence (12.38%, n=go) more than organizers did (9.58%, n=52), for a total value of 11.18% 61=142). International participation is a higher priority for organizers (11.60%, п=6з) than for scholars (4.40%, n=32), for a total of 7.48% 61=95). Sponsorship details were considered least important for both groups at 1.73% 61=22). Some respondents found it difficult to answer: organizers, 9.39% 61=51); scholars, 5.50% 61=40), indicating uncertainty or lack of consensus on the importance of these metadata, for a total of 7.17% 61=91).

4.4. What methods and tools do organizers and researchers use for collecting and analyzing academic events?

In an intriguing exploration of the intricacies involved in organizing AEs, a survey was conducted to delve into the challenges organizers and scholars face in collecting and managing academic event metadata. The survey, with a sample size of 543 organizers and 727 scholars, yields a comprehensive overview of the perceived difficulty of this task, revealing trends and divergences in experience between the two cohorts (Figure 9).

The data suggest a promising trend: a significant majority of both organizers (43.46%, n=236) and scholars (43.88%, n=3ig) find managing academic event metadata to be "very easy." This substantial alignment between the two groups indicates that, despite the complex nature of event metadata, the tools and processes currently in place facilitate an efficient management experience. However, beneath this veneer of ease, the survey uncovers a disparity in the perception of difficulty. While a notable 22.28% (n=i2i) of the organizers found the task "Easy," only 6.19% (n=45) of the scholars shared this sentiment. This discrepancy could indicate each group's different roles in the academic ecosystem, with organizers perhaps having more direct access to or familiarity with metadata management tools and protocols. At the same time, scholars might encounter such tasks less frequently, leading to a steeper learning curve. Interestingly, a "moderate" level of difficulty was reported more frequently by scholars (23.38%; n=iyo) than by organizers (only 5.71%; n=3i). This middle ground reflects a nuanced challenge in metadata management that could be attributed to varying levels of exposure, expertise, or resource availability.

Regarding facing challenges, a considerable portion of participants reported finding metadata management "difficult," with organizers and scholars closely aligned at 17.50% (n=95) and 15.96% (n=ii6), respectively. This finding points to a subset of the academic population that could significantly benefit from improved support systems, enhanced training, or more user-friendly metadata management solutions. A minority of the respondents found the task "very difficult," with 11.05% (n=6o) of the organizers and 10.59% (n=77) of the scholars reporting such challenges. Although they represent a smaller fraction of the total respondents, their difficulties are nontrivial and merit attention. This group's struggles may reflect more profound issues such as complex metadata requirements, insufficient training, or suboptimal management tools that require immediate redress to streamline the organizational aspect of AEs.

4.5. What are the requirements for descriptive metadata in different aspects of academic events?

Figure 10 shows the impact of metadata quality on academic events (AM) quality based on the responses of 2,046 organizers and 2,290 scholars. Scholars (26.24%, n=6oi) cite lack of standardization in event descriptions as a major problem more often than organizers (20.72%, n=424), with a total of 23.64% (n=iO25) of participants recognizing this as a key factor reducing metadata quality. Both organizers (26.44%, n=54i) and scholars (25.33%, n=58o) expressed the most common concern: insufficient attention given to metadata quality, resulting in a consensus of 25.85% (n=H2i) of the total responses. Technical problems related to metadata creation and updating are highlighted, with organizers (25.32%, n=5i8) being slightly more affected than scholars (20.66%, n=473), representing 22.86% (n=99i) of participants overall. A lack of information resources and tools affects 23.17% (n=474) of organizers and 23.58% (n=54o) of scholars, for a total of 23.39% (n=ioi4). Technical problems related to metadata creation and updating are highlighted, with organizers (25.32%, n=5i8) being slightly more affected than scholars (20.66%, n=473), representing 22.86% (n=99i) of respondents overall.

Figure 11 shows the survey results, in which 5,089 responses were received from respondents - including responses from 2,307 organizers and responses from 2,782 scholars - and in which quality criteria for academic events (AM) were identified. The main priorities and expectations of both organizers and scholars were identified. "High quality of publications" was the most valued attribute and was mentioned by 18.34% of the organizers and more than 20.56% of the scholars, for 19.55% (n=995). "Proven regular event" was a significant attribute noted by 16.10% of scholars and 13.91% of organizers for 15.11% (n=76g), indicating a preference for events with a consistent track record. "Well-known keynote speakers" were represented by 16.78% of the organizers and 13.19% of the scholars, for 14.82% (n=754). Notably, 9.10% of the organizers and 10.14% of the scholars "organized by highly recognized event organizers" indicated the credibility of events hosted by reputable figures. "Organized by a reputable institution" was recognized by 7.24% of the organizers and slightly more scholars (9.71%), for a total of 8.59% (n=437). Affiliation with a "reputable university/research institution" was considered important by 11.53% of the organizers and 7.94% of the scholars, for 9.57% (n=48y). The preference for "specialized events" was greater among organizers (8.58%) than among scholars (6.79%), for a total of 7.60% (п=з8у), reflecting the desire for focused scientific exchange. "Free participation" was more valued by scientists (4.13%) than by organizers (2.51%), for a total of 3.40% (п=17з). "Peer recommendation" and "high-quality website" are recognized by organizers and scholars at approximately 4.0%. A "comfortable location" and "attended colleagues" were the least influential factors, with overall percentages of 1.06% (n=54) and 1.67%, respectively (n=85). A "comfortable location" and "attachment of colleagues" were the least influential factors, with overall percentages of 1.06% (n=54) and 1.67% (n=85), respectively.

Figure 12 shows that the heat map provides insight into the responses of organizers and scholars regarding the criteria that determine the quality of an academic event based on multiple-choice questions. The most significant criterion for both organizers and scholars was "Attendance colleagues," with chi-square values of 16.83 and 13.96, respectively, highlighted in red. The key criterion is also "Organized by reputable institution," with 9.27 points for organizers and 7.68 points for scholars, highlighted in dark orange and yellow tones. Other criteria, such as "Free participation," "Famous key speakers," and "organized by a reputable institution," are moderately significant, with values ranging from 4.05 to 5.97 for organizers and 4.41 to 5.32 for scholars. The chi-square value for high-quality websites in both groups was o, indicating that there was no difference between the responses of the organizers and scholars. Lesser criteria such as "Specialized event," "Recommendation of colleagues," "Proven regular event," "Highly recognized event organizers," "High quality of the publication," and "Comfortable location" have lower chi-square values.

Figure 13 of the survey results reveals the preferences for persistent identifiers (PIDs) among academic event organizers and scholars. The main PIDs for academic events were assessed for 3,231 respondents (organizers: 1,544, scholars: 1,687) using multiple choice theory. ORCID was the most common type, with 30.44% being organizers (n=47o) and 36.75% being scholarly (n=62o) approvals, totaling 33.74% (1,090 responses). A total of 30.05% of the DOIs were organizers (n=464), and 2.19% were scholars (n=37), for a total of 15.51% (501 responses). Researcher ID was approved by 18.59% of the organizers (n=28y) and 17.01% of the scholars (п=28у), resulting in 17.77% (574 responses). ISSN and ISBN were preferred more by scholars (19.86%, n=335; 18.79%, n=3i7) than by organizers (9.00%, n=i39; 7.58%, n=H7), with overall response rates of 14.67% (474 responses) and 13.43% (434 responses), respectively. Lesser-known PIDs, such as the ROR, URN, PMID, and GDPR, received minimal attention, with total responses of 1.61%, 1.24%, 1.15%, and 0.90%, respectively, amounting to fewer than 52 responses each.

Figure 14 shows the views of the organizers and scholars on which the AE-related documents and data should be openly accessible based on 4,901 multiple-choice responses. The highest agreement (21.85%, 11=1071) was on the importance of accessible, detailed event descriptions, with organizers (20.87%, n=53°) and scholars (22.90%, n=54i) nearly aligned. A close second is the need for a detailed agenda or schedule, which is valued almost equally by organizers (21.62%, n=549) and scholars (21.72%, п=51з), totaling 21.67% (11=1062) of the responses. Conference proceedings are also highlighted, with 17.01% (n=432) of the organizers and 13.63% (n=322) of the scholars emphasizing their importance, totaling 15.38% 61=754) of the responses. Interest in articles showed a significant disparity, with scholars (8.89%, n=2io) nearly doubling the interest of organizers (4.96%, n=i26). Organizers were more valued for presenting these findings (7.52%, 11=191) than scholars were (5.88%, 11=139). Less critical elements included educational materials (2.98%, п=14б responses) and posters (5.00%, n=245), which received less priority from both groups. Moderate interest was shown in the video recordings (4.79%, n=235 responses), reflecting a trend toward visual media, while the audio recordings were least valued (1.00%, n=49 responses). Event resolutions are somewhat important (7.51%, п=з68 responses), whereas certificates (2.49%, n=i22 responses) and an option for all listed points (3.73%, п=18з responses) receive minimal attention, suggesting that formal outcomes and personal accreditation from events are less crucial overall.

Figure 15 shows a heat map visualizing the significant differences in the chi-square test results between organizers and scholars regarding which AE documents or data should be open access. There is a notable divergence in the importance attributed to articles, with chisquare values of 13.27 for organizers and 14.27 for scholars, indicating a significant difference in their valuation, likely due to varying reasons or emphases. The idea of making all the documents and data publicly available shows a considerable difference, with organizers at a chi-square value of 7.8 and scholars at 8.39, revealing a strong yet varied interest in comprehensive access to event materials. The importance of conference proceedings is similarly high for both, with minor differences (organizers: 4.38, scholars: 4.71), reflecting a mutual acknowledgment of their value. Both groups similarly value video content (organizers: 4.63, scholars: 4.98), suggesting a consensus on its growing relevance. Educational materials are moderately important to both parties, with chisquare values of 1.16 for organizers and 1.25 for scholars, indicating a shared viewpoint. There was unanimous agreement between the two groups on the importance of the event program (chi-square value of o). Posters are deemed less important by both (organizers: 0.49, scholars: 0.53). Resolutions and certificates receive relatively low chi-square values (below 2.5 for both), highlighting a minor difference in opinions and overall lower importance. Although slightly more important for scholars (2.31) than for organizers (2.15), audio recordings are still considered less critical than other materials.

5. DISCUSSION

The study investigated preferences for organizing and participating in AEs, uncovering differences between scholars and organizers (Table 5). Notably, 29.85% of the scholars preferred hybrid formats, whereas 14.36% preferred organizers (p < 0.001), indicating scholars' appreciation for the flexibility of hybrid events. Organizers favored offline events (20.07%) more than scholars did (7.29%), emphasizing the value of face-to-face interaction. Both groups strongly preferred online events, highlighting the overall acceptance of convenient digital formats (Hauss, 2020). Understanding these preferences is crucial for tailoring future AEs to meet the needs of both groups amidst the evolving landscape of academic events. This significant difference (p-value < 0.001) may reflect the traditional benefits of face-to-face networking. Among the respondents, organizers (65.56%) and scholars (62.86%) strongly preferred online events, but the difference was insignificant. This trend underscores the general acceptance of the convenience and accessibility of Internet formats. Online conferencing facilitates the participation of people with financial or physical limitations. However, maintaining interactive and effective communication in the digital space remains a challenge, as indicated in the study by Pavluković et al., (2020). The influence of factors such as climate crises and inequality (Raven et al., 2023) on the choice of event format must also be considered. Understanding these preferences is critical for tailoring future AEs to meet the needs of both scholars and organizers. As the landscape of AEs continues to evolve, flexibility and responsiveness to these preferences will play key roles in creating successful AEs.

Analysis of the data presented in Figure 2 reveals significant differences in the ratings of metadata quality between organizers and scholars. Among organizers, 22.84% (11=124) rated metadata quality as "very bad", whereas, among scholars, 39.75% (n=28q) felt this way, for a total of 32.52% (п=41з) of the total number of respondents. These findings highlight the critical need for metadata improvement in the context of academic developments in Ukraine and echo the findings of Lackner et al., (2021), indicating problems with metadata quality in academia. Bryl et al., (2014) emphasized the importance of metadata in assessing the "quality and relevance" of conferences. Lackner et at, (2021) conducted a study focusing on the outputs of AEs, mainly in computer science, using the definition of quality as usability. Hauss (2020) did not use the term quality directly but studied the social and scientific impact of conference attendance, addressing some aspects of usability used in this study. Together, these studies emphasize the importance of metadata in ensuring the quality and relevance of AEs and point to current challenges and opportunities for improvement in this area.

As shown in Figure 3, most of the organizers (84.90%, n=46i) and scholars (89.96%, n=654) considered improving metadata quality to be "very important." This confirms that metadata quality issues are highly prioritized in academia. Similar findings were made in a study by Porter (2016), who noted the importance of metadata for effectively managing academic resources-not about low static records but about objects as they move between systems and organizations. According to Figure 4, there is an imbalance between the importance of metadata and the frequency of errors; 40.70% of organizers and 38.93% of scholars encounter metadata problems only "sometimes" indicating a need to improve its accuracy and reliability. These findings align with the results of Muntabir (2023), who emphasized the frequency of errors in metadata for digital objects and their impact on academic study.

Figure 5 shows that most respondents find metadata management relatively easy, with 43.46% of organizers and 43.88% of scientists rating it as "very easy." However, 11.05% of the organizers and 10.59% of the scholars found it "very difficult." This finding is consistent with a previous study (Amarmeet, 2023) that discussed the complexities associated with metadata management in academic environments. From these results, improving metadata quality is a critical task for both organizers and scholars. Additional resources and training may be needed to enhance its quality and develop more intuitive tools for metadata management. Establishing metadata governance requires five activities: developing a metadata strategy, understanding metadata needs, defining a metadata architecture, creating and managing metadata, and querying, reporting, and analyzing metadata. The three planning procedures for metadata management include developing a metadata strategy, defining metadata needs, and developing a metadata architecture. A comprehensive and effective data management system would benefit the metadata management industry. An enterprise needs a metadata management system and lifecycles, as well as assessments of metadata responsibilities, lifecycles, statistics, and how different activities utilize metadata. A metadata strategy ensures consistency across an organization's data environment (Amarmeet, 2023). These data can contribute to developing policies and strategies to improve the quality of metadata, which, in turn, will improve the academic environment and academic resource management in Ukraine.

The results presented in Figure 6 show that both groups prioritized "event description," with a total importance score of 12.38%. The prioritization of "event topic" and "event type," with a combined importance of 12.11%, each indicates a common understanding of their importance in the academic landscape, which supports Rowell's (2016) findings on the standardization of academic metadata. Figure 7, a heat map based on chi-square values, shows significant differences in the weights that organizers and scholars give to different factors when evaluating academic activities. The high importance of personal recommendations is consistent with the findings of Pavluković et at, (2020), who emphasized the influence of social validation on decisions to participate in AEs. Thus, the results of exploratory factor analysis revealed the six-factor structure of the conference participation decision-making process: destination stimuli, costs, destination accessibility, educational and professional opportunities, intervening opportunities, location factors, and conference factors. These findings confirm previous related works by other researchers (Aktas and Demirel (2019); Jung and Tanford (2017); Liang and Latip (2018). One of the underlying dimensions of conference attendance appears to be the destination. This study identified three factors related to the destination: destination stimuli, costs and accessibility, and location factors. The first factor, Destination stimuli, emphasizes the importance of destination attractiveness when an academic chooses a conference to participate in. These findings are consistent with the findings of Malekmohammadi et at, (2011).

The results of Figure 8 show the importance of metadata relating to funders or sponsors, with organizers accounting for 35.91% and scholars accounting for 36.73%, indicating a collective assessment of formal academic support. This reflects the trends identified, which note the increasing role of institutional financial support in decision-making in AEs. The findings suggest that despite awareness of the need for high-quality metadata, actual practice is inadequate, echoing the call for action in the larger European academic context. Given the close relationship between metadata quality and academic engagement, these findings should encourage event organizers to focus on the accuracy and completeness of metadata.

Figure 9 shows the survey results on the easy-to-manage AEs metadata from the organizers and scholars' perspective. The results are very revealing: the majority of organizers (43.46%, n=236) and scholars (43.88%, n=3i9) stated that it is "very easy" to manage metadata. This finding suggests that existing metadata management tools and systems are effective for most users. However, these results should be interpreted cautiously, as apparent ease may obscure the deeper issues faced by a minority of users. In contrast, a smaller but notable proportion of organizers (22.28%, n=i2i) and an even smaller proportion of scholars (6.19%, n=45) found metadata management 'easy', indicating potential inequalities in access to or familiarity with the necessary tools and protocols for metadata management. This discrepancy may reflect the different roles and responsibilities inherent in organizers and scholars. A significant number of scholars (23.38%, n=iyo) reported a moderate level of complexity, greater than that of organizers (5.71%, n=3i). This moderate level may indicate varying levels of familiarity with metadata management, as Palavitsinis et at, (2019) noted, emphasizing the need for more intuitive and accessible metadata tools in academia. The study revealed an important feature: a significant part of the academic community faces problems managing metadata: 17.50% of organizers and 15.96% of scholars find it "complicated". This finding suggests the need for more usable metadata management tools and more effective training programs that could improve the management of AEs.

The results of the survey (see Fig. 10) indicate problems related to metadata management. A total of 26.24% of the scholars, compared to 20.72% of the organizers, considered lack of standardization a significant problem, indicating that 23.64% of the respondents were concerned about this aspect. This finding is consistent with the findings of Vahdati et at, (2016), who identified standardization as a key factor for metadata integrity in academic databases. According to DAMA-DMB0Kv2, five actions are required to organize metadata management: developing a metadata strategy, understanding metadata needs, defining metadata architecture, creating and managing metadata, and querying, reporting, and analyzing metadata (Amarmeet et at, 2023). Concerns about metadata quality are almost equal among organizers (26.44%) and scholars (25.33%), indicating a shared recognition of their importance to academic research. Technical challenges in creating and updating metadata are also important, more so for organizers (25.32%) than for scholars (20.66%), which matches the concerns recorded by Hagemann Wilhoit et at, (2020) in their study. The ConfIDent project aims to develop a service platform for the collaborative curation of semantically structured metadata of AEs, providing reliable and transparent data for various stakeholders (Choudhury et at, 2023). The impact of the quality of conference metadata is evident in the higher citation rate of papers at conferences with low adoption rates than at conferences with high adoption rates.

Figure 11 highlights that the academic community places great importance on "High quality of publication," with organizers and scholars rating its significance at 18.34% and 20.56%, respectively. This focus on publication quality echoes the observations of Bryl et at, (2014), who noted the difficulty in accessing necessary data for decision-making on conference submissions, often concealed within conference management systems. Scholars value the consistency of "proven regular events" (16.10%) more than organizers (13.91%), likely due to their reliance on these events for ongoing academic engagement. The significance of "Famous keynote speakers" and "Highly recognized event organizers" is also evident, underlining the role of reputation and credibility in attracting participants, as discussed in studies such as Çavusoǧlu et at, (2023). Lackner et at, (2021) noted that the composition of organizing committees and keynote speakers often changes with event location, although the core program committee remains largely stable.

The literature also addresses the impact of conference publication quality on conference reputation, with (Laplante et at, 2009) and (Peiler, 2013) discussing the effects of subpar papers and technology integration on the perceived quality of conferences. Martins et at, (2010), Zhuang et at, (2007), and Stevie et at, (2019) proposed methods for assessing conference quality, including bibliographic citations and analysis of program committee characteristics. The importance of descriptive and bibliographic metadata in the scientific literature is emphasized by Ball (2011) and Tarrant et at, (2008), with ongoing research into the automatic extraction and analysis of scholarly metadata (Bertin and Atanassova (2012); Doerfel et at, (2012), Guo and Jin (2011), and Nasar et at, (2018) to facilitate bibliometric analysis and enhance the overall quality of conference publications.

Figure 12 shows the differences in the chisquare criterion between the opinions of the organizers and scholars on the criteria of the event. The importance given by organizers to the criterion "Attended colleagues" (16.83) was greater than that provided by scholars (13.96), who emphasize the networking aspect of events, as confirmed by Vladimirovich et al., (2019), who believe that networking is a key determinant of event attendance. These ideas emphasize the importance of networking at conferences and the different measurements and mechanisms involved in building professional relationships. The importance of "free participation" and "famous keynote speakers" to organizers suggests that they aim to reach a larger audience, as evidenced by Trost et al., (2018) and Yamashita et al., (2023), who studied the impact of incentives on event attendance.

The results in Figure 13 show a preference for ORCID by both organizers (30.44%) and scholars (36.75%), which is in line with the global trend toward persistent identifiers for researchers, as noted by Demeranville (2018). ORCID simplifies the process of recording publications and research achievements and contributes to the visibility and accessibility of scientists' work in the international academic community. On the other hand, the preference for DOI by conference organizers (30.05%) over scholars (2.19%), as indicated by Klump et al., (2016), highlights the importance of tracking digital publications. The purpose of using DOI in the context of conferences, as described by Franken et al., (2022), emphasizes the potential for automatic indexing and real-time updating of metadata. This approach would greatly improve the availability and quality of metadata, making it more "FAIR" (discoverable, accessible, interoperable, reusable). As Wilkinson (2016) noted, the key data consumers in the scholarly sector are publishers, indexing services, current research information systems (CRISs), funding organizations, and higher education institutions. These actors play different but highly intertwined roles in metadata collection, processing, and dissemination. Their contributions are invaluable in making scholarly information accessible and effective.

Figure 14 shows that organizers and scholars agree on the importance of open access to event descriptions and proceedings. This demonstrates the general value of transparency and accessibility in academia and supports the argument for the importance of open access in disseminating scientific information. Figures 10-14 show a recognized need for better metadata management, more accessible and high-quality academic publications, and the importance of reputation and credibility in identifying AEs.

6. CONCLUSIONS

This study provides key information about the field of AEs in Ukraine, revealing different preferences and shared values among organizers and scholars. There is a general emphasis on the importance of event descriptions and event management in academia. Key factors in deciding whether to participate in AEs include personal recommendations and academic reputation. Metadata relating to sponsors or funders is critical because it reflects the role of institutional support in AEs. Quality publications are prioritized, indicating their importance in enhancing the reputation of AEs. Organizers value networking more, and free participation and outstanding speakers are needed to attract a wider audience. Both groups preferred ORCID, which aligns with global trends in academia, while organizers showed a greater propensity for DOIs to track digital publications. The study emphasizes the need for better descriptive metadata management, quality publications, and open access to AEs. It also emphasizes the importance of networked, online, and hybrid formats of AEs, as well as institutional support in shaping the participation and governance of AEs, providing key information for strategizing in Ukraine's academic sector.

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine for their support in organizing this research and disseminating the results. I would like to thank Dr. Sören Auer, Christian Hauschke and Lambert Heller for the opportunity to continue the research at the TIB - Leibniz Information Center for Science and Technology and the University Library. I thank Gareth Dyke for his support with the consultation. I would like to thank the Armed Forces of Ukraine for the fight, thanks to which Ukrainian scientists can continue their research work.

Funding

The funding for the research was provided by the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine, "Creation of the Ukrainian Research Information System "URIS", 20.03.2020, No. 348. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, publication decision, or manuscript preparation.

Conflict of interest

The author has no relevant financial or nonfinancial interests to disclose.

Statement of data consent

The respondents' responses generated during this study's development cannot be made available in the open access raw data underlying this study to protect the anonymity of respondents and their organizations but can be requested by email at [email protected]. Dataset UA_Academic_Events: created during the development of this study were archived in Zenodo and are available at https://doi.org/1o.5281/ zenodo.10468460.

Abbreviations and acronyms

AEs: academic events

MC: multiple choice

PIDs: persistent identificators

MESU: Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine

MHU: Ministry of Healthcare of Ukraine

IECM: Institute for Educational Content Modernization

USEDE: Unified State Electronic Database on Education

CDP: Continuing Professional Development

UkrISTEI: Ukrainian Institute of Scientific and Technical Expertise and Information *

Sidebar

Received: 24-01-2024. Accepted: 26-03-2024. Published: 05-04-2024

Editor: Adilson Luiz Pinto

How to cite: Auhunas, S. (2024). Evaluation and impact of descriptive metadata on academic event management in Ukraine: A quantitative study. Iberoamerican Journal of Science Measurement and Communication; 4(1), 1-30. DOI: 10.47909/ijsmc.91

References

REFERENCES

HILLMANN, D. L, and Westbrooks, E. L. (2004). Introduction to Metadata in Practice. Faculty Publications, UNL Libraries. Paper 166. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libraryscience/166.

GAMBLE, M., and Goble, C. (2011). Quality, trust, and utility of scientific data on the web: Toward a joint model. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Web Science Conference (WebSci Ti). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. Article 15, 1-8. https://doi. org/10.1145/2527031.2527048 DOI: https:// d0i.0rg/10.1145/2527031.2527048.

HAUSCHKE, C., Nazarovets, S., Altemeier, E, and Kaliuzhna, N. (2021). Roadmap to FAIR Research Information in Open Infrastructures. Journal of Library Metadata, 21(1-2), 45-61. https://doi.org/1o.1o8o/19386 389.2021.1999156 DOI: https://doi.org/1o.1o 80/19386389.2021.1999156.

GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE. (2022). Government Resolution "On Approval of the National Plan regarding Open Science," No. 892-r, October 8, 2022, Kyiv. Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/8922O22-%Di%8o#Text.

INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF LIBRARY ASSOCIATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS. (2017). IFLA annual report. IFLA.

DRISCOLL, J. C., AND KRAAY, A. (1995, December). Spatial Correlations in Panel Data. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 1553. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/ abstract=6o4938.

DENZIN, N. K., AND LINCOLN, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications.

FLICK, U. (2018). The sage handbook of qualitative data collection. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/1o.4135/9781526416o7oDOI: https://doi.org/1o.4135/9781526416o7o.

AUHUNAS, S., ZHARINOVA, A., AND KALIUZHNA, N. (2022). Descriptive metadata management for scientific events and conferences registration in Ukraine, https://doi.org/1o.35668/ 978-966-479-129-5-1-10 DOI: https://doi. org/10.35668/978-966-479-129-5-1-10.

GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE. (2016). On Scientific and Scientific-Technical Activities. The Official Bulletin of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (BVR), (3), Art. 25. Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/ 848-19.

INSTITUTE FOR EDUCATIONAL CONTENT MODERNIZATION. (n.d.). Letters from the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine. Retrieved from https://imzo.gov.ua/dokumenti/listi-mon-ukrayini/.

GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE. (2014). On Higher Education. The Official Bulletin of the Verkhovna Rada (BVR), (37-38), Article 2004. Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/ laws/show/i556-i8#Text.

CABINET OF MINISTERS OF UKRAINE. (2023). On approval of the Procedure for awarding academic degrees. Draft Resolution. Retrieved from http://dochub.com.ua/sites/default/ files/unitattachments/2Oi7/29/poryadok_ prisudzhennya_pr0ekt_7.pdf.

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE OF UKRAINE. (2019). On Approval of the Procedure for Credit Accrual of ECTS based on the Results of Professional Training. National Agency of Ukraine on Civil Service Order (No. 1288/34259). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/ laws/show/zi288-i9#Text.

CABINET OF MINISTERS OF UKRAINE. (2021). On Approval of the Regulation on the System of Continuous Professional Development of Healthcare Workers (No. 725). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/ show/725-2O2i-%Do%BF#Text.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF UKRAINE. (2017). On Approval of the Requirements for Dissertation Design (Order No. 40). Retrieved from http://zak0n2.rada. gov.ua/laws/show/zo155-17.

CABINET OF MINISTERS OF UKRAINE. (2013). On approval of the Procedure for awarding academic degrees (No. 567). Retrieved from http://search.ligazakon.ua/l_doc2.nsf/ linki/KPi3O5Ó7.html.

BIRIUKOV, O.V., ZELENSKA,, V. V., AND ZAKHAROVA, N. O. (2017). Scientific and communication activities and approbation of scientific results: definition, content, purpose. Project management and production development, 3(63), 76-96.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH OF UKRAINE, (n.d.). Measures of continuous development of doctors and pharmaceutical workers. Retrieved from https://docs.google.eom/spreadsheets/d/1AB2O9b8C3xzqdrhc-kjBp3Rqmbixe51Y/edit#gid=117235OO21.

TESTING CENTER, (n.d.). Continuing professional development of healthcare professionals. Retrieved from https://www.testcentr. org.ua/uk/bpr.

UKRAINIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL EXPERTISE AND INFORMATION. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.uintei. kiev.ua/.

KALIUZHNA, N., AND AUHUNAS, S. (2022). Research Information Infrastructure in Ukraine: First steps toward building a national CRIS. In Procedía Computer Science, 211, 230-237. https://d0i.0rg/10.1016/j. procs.2022.10.196.

CRESWELL, J. W., AND CRESWELL, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE Publications.

REGISTER OF EDUCATIONAL ENTITIES INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER, SPECIALIZED PRE-HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL (VOCATIONAL) EDUCATION https://registry.edbo.gov.ua/opendata/universities/?ut=i.

CABINET OF MINISTERS OF UKRAINE. (2015). On Approval of the List of Fields of Knowledge and Specialties for Training of Higher Education Applicants (Resolution No. 266 of April 29, 2015). Retrieved from https://zakon. rada.gov.ua/laws/show/266-2Oi5-%Do%BF?lang=en#Text.

R CORE TEAM. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

WICKHAM, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis (2nd ed.). Springer Cham, https://doi.org/1o.1oo7/978-3-31924277-4 DOI: https://doi.org/1o.1oo7/9783-319-24277-4.

LARSSON, J. (2018). eulerr: Area-proportional Euler diagrams with ellipses. Retrieved from http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8934042.

OPENREFINE. (2023). Retrieved from https:// openrefine.org/.

MIRAHMADIZADEH, A., DELAM, H., SEIF, M., AND BAHRAMI, R. (2018). Designing, constructing, and analyzing Likert scale data. Journal of Education and Community Health. https://d0i.0rg/i0.2i859/JECH.5.3.63 DOI: https://doi.org/io.iOO7/978-3-3i9-24277-4.

ADESOLA, Z., AND MUSA. (2017). Statistical issues II: Chi-Square test statistics.

RAVEN, R., HADFIELD, R, BUTLER, B., AND EAGLETON, J. (2023). Transitioning to sustainable academic conferences needs more experimentation and reflection. Global Sustainability, 6, 1-5. https://doi.org/1o.1o17/ sus.2023.15 DOI: https://doi.org/1o.1o17/ sus.2023.15.

LACKNER, A., FATH ALL A, S., NAYYERI, M., BEHREND, A., MANTHEY, R., AUER, S., LEHMANN, J., AND VAHDATI, S. (2021). Analyzing the evolution of computer science events leveraging a scholarly knowledge graph: A scientometrics study of top-ranked events in the past decade. Scientometrics, 126(9), 8129-8151. https://doi.org/1o.1oo7/s11192021-04072-0 DOI: https://doi.org/1o.1oo7/ SII192-021-04072-0.

BRYL, V., BIRUKOU, A., ECKERT, K., AND KESSLER, M. (2014). What's in the proceedings? Combining publisher's and researcher's perspectives. Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Semantic Publishing. Retrieved from https://ceur-ws.0rg/V0l-1155/paper-01.pdf.

HAUSS, К. (2020). What are the social and scientific benefits of participating at academic conferences? Insights from a survey among doctoral students and postdocs in Germany. Research Evaluation, 30(1), 1-12. Oxford University Press (OUP). https://doi. org/io.io93/reseval/rvaaoi8 DOI: https:// doi.org/1o.1o93/reseval/rvaao18.

PORTER, S. (2016). Digital Science White Paper: A New 'Research Data Mechanics'. Retrieved from https://doi.org/1o.6o84/M9. FIGSHARE.3514859.V1.

CHOUDHURY, M. H., SALSABIL, L., JAYANETTI, H., ET AL. (2023). MetaEnhance: Metadata Quality Improvement for Electronic Theses and Dissertations of University Libraries. ArXiv. doi: 10.48550^x^.2303.17661.

KAUR, A., USAMA, M., AND WONG HOOI TEN, D. (2023). Literature Review on Metadata Governance. Open International Journal of Informatics, 11(1), 114-120.

ROWELL, C. J. (2016). Metadata standards and web services in libraries, archives, and museums: An active learning resource. Technical Services Quarterly, 33(3), 347-349. https://d0i.0rg/10.1080/07317131.2016.1169 861 DOI: https://d0i.0rg/10.1080/07317131. 2016.1169861.

PaVLUKOVIĆ, V, AND ClMBALJEVIC, M. (2020). Factors affecting conference participation decision-making. Journal of the Geographical Institute Jovan Cvijic SASA, 70(1), 31-43. https://d0i.0rg/10.2298/IJGI2001031p DOI: https://d0i.0rg/10.2298/IJGI2001031p.

AKTAS, G., AND DEMIREL, B. (2019). The genuine needs of conference attendees: an analysis by the modern quality function deployment. International Journal for Quality Research, 13(1), 13-32. https://doi. org/io.24874/IJQRi3.oi-O2 DOI: https:// d0i.0rg/10.24874/IJQR13.01-02.

JUNG, S., AND TANFORD, S. (2017). What contributes to convention attendee satisfaction and loyalty? A meta-analysis. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 18(2), 118-134. http://dx.d0i.0rg/10.1080/15470148.2017.12 90565 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/1o.1o8o/1547o 148.2017.1290565.

LIANG, H. C. K, AND LATIP, H. A. (2018). Factors Affecting Attendees' Decision-Making in Convention Tourism Industry. Advanced Science Letters, 24(6), 4414-4420(7). https:// doi.org/1o.1166/asl.2o18.11616 DOI: https:// doi.org/1o.1166/asl.2o18.11616.

MALEKMOHAMMADI, A., MOHAMED, B., AND EKIZ, E. H. (2011). An Analysis of Conference Attendee Motivations: Case of International Conference Attendees in Singapore. Journal of Travel and Tourism Research, 11(1), 50-64. Retrieved from https://www. academia.edu/2460081/An_Analysis_0f_ Conference_Attendee_Motivations_Case_ of_International_Conference_Attendees_ in_Singapore.

PALAVITSINIS, N., MANOUSELIS, N., AND SANCHEZ-ALONSO, S. (2019). Metadata Quality Issues in Learning Repositories. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 18,17-39.

VAHDATI, S., ARNDT, N., AUER, S., AND LANGE, C. (2016). OpenResearch: Collaborative Management of Scholarly Communication Metadata. In E. Blomqvist, P. Ciancarini, F. Poggi, & F. Vitali (Eds.), Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management. 20th International Conference, EKAW 2016, Bologna, Italy, November 19-23, 2016, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 10024) (pp. 778-793). Springer International Publishing, https://doi.org/1o.1oo7/ 978-3-3ig-49OO4-5_5O DOI: https://doi. 0rg/i0.i007/978-3-3i9-49004-5_50.

HAGEMANN-WILHOLT, S., PLANK, M., AND HAUSCHKE, C. (2020). Confident-an open platform for FAIR conference metadata. GL Conference Series; 21. Amsterdam: TextRelease. p. 47-51.

CAVUSOGLU, M., DO&GCARON;AN, S., KIR&AACUTE;NT YOZCU, O., HSU, M.-J., AND COBANOGLU, C. (2023). A conjoint analysis of attributes influencing attendance of academic conferences. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, https://doi.org/1o.11o8/ ijchm-10-2020-1184 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-10-2020-1184.

LAPLANTE, R, ROCKNE, J. J., MONTUSCHI, R, BALDWIN, T., HINCHEY, M., SHAFER, L., VOAS, J., AND WANG, W. (2009). Quality in Conference Publishing. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 52(2), 183-196. https://doi.org/1o.11o9/TPC. 2009.2017989 DOI: https://doi.org/1o.11o9/ TPC.2009.2017989.

PELLER, V. V. (2013). Utilization of Technology for Mathematical Talks. An Alarming Situation. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 60(02), 1. https://doi.org/1o.1o9o/noti94o DOI: https://doi.org/1o.1o9o/noti94o.

MARTINS, W. S., GONÇALVES, M. A., LAENDER, A. H. E, AND ZIVIANI, N. (2010). Assessing the quality of scientific conferences based on bibliographic citations. Scientometrics, 83(f), 133-155- https://d0i.0rg/10.1007/s11192-0090078-y DOI: https://doi.org/1o.1oo7/s11192009-0078-y.

ZHUANG, Z., LEE, D., AND GILES, C. L. (2007). Measuring Conference Quality by Mining Program Committee Characteristics. JCDL '07: Proceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, 225-234. https://doi. org/10.1145/1255175.1255220 DOI: https:// doi.org/1o.1145/1255175.125522o.

STEVIĆ, Ž., DALIC, L, PAMUČAR, D., NUNIĆ, Z., VESKOVIC, S., VASILJEVIČ, M., AND TANACKOV, I. (2019). A new hybrid model for quality assessment of scientific conferences based on Rough BWM and SERVQUAL. Scientometrics, 119(1), 1-30. https://doi.org/1o.1oo7/ SII192-019-03032-Z DOI: https://doi.org/io. 1007/SII192-019-03032-Z.

BALL, A. (2011). Overview of scientific metadata for data publishing, citation, and curation. Retrieved from https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:59794424.

TARRANT, D., CARR, L., AND PAYNE, T. (2008). Releasing the Power of Digital Metadata: Examining Large Networks of Correlated Publications. In Christensen-Dalsgaard, B., Castelli, D., Ammitzbøll Jurik, B., & Lippincott, J. (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 172-184). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/1o.1oo7/978-3-54o87599-4_18 DOI: https://doi.org/1o.1oo7/ 978-3-540-87599-4-18.

BERTIN, M., AND ATANASSOVA, I. (2012). Semantic Enrichment of Scientific Publications and Metadata: Citation Analysis Through Contextual and Cognitive Analysis. D Lib Mag., 18. https://d0i.0rg/10.1045/July2012-bertin DOI: https://d0i.0rg/10.1045/July2012-bertin.

DOERFEL, S., DOERFEL, S., ROBERT, J., HOTHO, A., AND STUMME, G. (2012). Leveraging publication metadata and social data into FolkRank for scientific publication recommendation. RSWeb '12: Proceedings of the 4th ACM ReeSys Workshop on Recommender Systems and the Social Web, September, 9-16. https://doi.org/1o.1145/2365934-2365937.

GUO, Z., AND JIN, H. (2011). Reference metadata extraction from scientific papers. 2011 12th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Computing, Applications and Technologies, 45-49. https://doi.org/1o.11o9/ PDCAT.2011.72.

NASAR, Z., JAFFRY, S. W., AND MALIK, M. K. (2018). Information extraction from scientific articles: a survey. Scientometrics, 117(3), 1931-1990. https://doi.org/1o.1oo7/s11192018-2921-5.

VLADIMIROVICH, S., GALIKHANOV, M., BARABANOVA, S. V, KAYBIYAYNEN, A. A., AND SUNTSOVA, M. S. (2019). International Network Conference as an Efficient Way to Integrate Universities and Businesses in the Context of Digital Economy. https://doi. 0rg/i0.i007/978-3-030-40274-7_63.

HANSEN, T. T., AND PEDERSEN, D. B. (2018). The impact of academic events - A literature review. Research Evaluation. https://doi. org/ю.1093/RESEVAL/RVY025.

YAMASHITA, R., AND OSHIMI, D. (2023). The motivations for and barriers to academic conference attendance: Insights from an international sport management conference. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism. https://doi. org/10.1080/15470148.2023.2205184.

DEMERANVILLE, T. (2018). Building a robust research infrastructure, one PID at a time (ORCID Blog). Retrieved from https://orcid. org/blog/2018/08/08/building-robust-research-infrastructure-one-pid-time.

KLUMP, J., HUBER, R., AND DIEPENBROEK, M. (2016). DOI for geoscience data - How early practices shape present perceptions. Earth Science Informatics, 9(1), 123-136. ISSN: 1865-0473. DOI: https://doi.org/1o.1oo7/ S12145-015-0231-5.

FRANKEN, J., BIRUKOU, A., ECKERT, K., FAHL, W., HAUSCHKE, C., AND LANGE, C. (2022). Persistent Identification for Conferences. Data Science Journal, 21:11, pp. 1-18. https:// d0i.0rg/10.5334/dsj-2022-011

WILKINSON, M. D., ET AL. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3: 160018. https://d0i.0rg/10.1038/sdata.2016.18.