SYSTEM OF THE SCIENTIFIC REGISTERS: RECOMMENDATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE URIS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62405/osi.2025.02.03Keywords:
Scientific registries, URIS, research information system, data integration, interoperability, Ukraine, public electronic registries, ORCID, DOI, ROR.Abstract
The fragmentation of scientific data across disparate systems in Ukraine poses significant challenges to effective research management, strategic planning, and integration into the global scientific community. This article describes the Ukrainian Research Information System (URIS) and proposes the development of a comprehensive framework of interconnected registries aimed at streamlining the management of scientific activities. The registers should be developed in alignment with the Law of Ukraine “On Public Electronic Registries” (No. 1907-IX, dated 18.11.2021), providing URIS with data on research projects, results, institutions, publications, infrastructure, certifications, dissertations, intellectual property, researchers, and supporting documentation. By ensuring compliance with national legislation and incorporating international standards such as ORCID for researcher identification, ROR for organizations, and DOI for digital objects, the system enhances transparency, interoperability, and operational efficiency within Ukraine’s scientific ecosystem.
The literature review examines key areas including methodologies for persistent identifiers (PIDs), development of integrated scientific information systems (CRIS), standards for data quality and confidentiality in public registries, and the impact of interoperability on cross-border data exchange. The analysis draws on global best practices to highlight how standards like CERIF, SDMX, and OAI-PMH enable data harmonization. It also addresses key challenges: data heterogeneity, privacy concerns, and governance structures.
Methodologically, the study employs a multifaceted approach: a detailed review of Ukrainian legislation, conceptual modeling using Entity-Relationship Diagrams (ERD), and analysis of international CRIS implementations to design URIS as a legally compliant, automated system that minimizes administrative burdens through single data entry and validation.
The results provide recommendations for future URIS architecture, comprising nine core registries and an intellectual property integration module. For instance, the Registry of Projects manages funding and status details with unique identifiers; the Registry of Scientific Results documents outputs like technologies and datasets; the Registry of Institutions builds on EDRPOU with scientific specifics; and the Registry of Publications aggregates metadata from sources like Scopus, ensuring deduplication and verification. Interconnections enable seamless data flow, automated dossier generation, and public access to non-sensitive information, while security protocols protect confidentiality.
In conclusion, URIS represents a transformative step toward a unified, efficient scientific infrastructure in Ukraine, fostering evidence-based policymaking, reducing redundancy, and promoting international collaboration. Future enhancements could incorporate AI for advanced analytics, further elevating Ukraine’s position in the global research landscape.
Downloads
References
1. Agosti, D., Bénichou, L., Addink, W., Arvanitidis, C., Catapano, T., Cochrane, G., Dillen, M., et al. (2022). Recommendations for use of annotations and persistent identifiers in taxonomy and biodiversity publishing. Research Ideas and Outcomes, 8, e97374. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.8.e97374
2. Bellini, E., Luddi, C., Cirinnà, C., Lunghi, M., Felicetti, A., Bazzanella, B., & Bouquet, P. (2012). Interoperability knowledge base for persistent identifiers interoperability framework. In 2012 Eighth International Conference on Signal Image Technology and Internet Based Systems (SITIS), 868–875. https://doi.org/10.1109/SITIS.2012.130
3. Bollini, A., Mennielli, M., Mornati, S., & Palmer, D. (2016). IRIS: Supporting and managing the research life-cycle. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(4), 738–743. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2016.040410
4. Car, N. J., Golodoniuc, P., & Klump, J. (2017). The challenge of ensuring persistency of identi-fier systems in the world of ever-changing technology. Data Science Journal, 16, 13. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2017-013
5. Carboni, N., & Velicogna, M. (2012). Electronic data exchange within European justice: A good opportunity? International Journal for Court Administration, 4(3), 104. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.90
6. Frøen, J. F., Myhre, S. L., Frost, M. J., Chou, D., Mehl, G., Say, L., Cheng, S., et al. (2016). eRegistries: Electronic registries for maternal and child health. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 16, 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-0801-7
7. Hardisty, A. R., Addink, W., Glöckler, F., Güntsch, A., Islam, S., & Weiland, C. (2021). A choice of persistent identifier schemes for the Distributed System of Scientific Collections (DiSSCo). Research Ideas and Outcomes, 7, e67379. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.7.e67379
8. Kaliuzhna, N., & Auhunas, S. (2022). Research information infrastructure in Ukraine: First steps towards building a national CRIS. Procedia Computer Science, 211, 230–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.10.196
9. Karaiskos, D. C., Xinidis, D., & Bonis, V. (2017). R&D statistics information system: An in-teroperability tail between CERIF and SDMX. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Current Research Information Systems. Procedia Computer Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.03.039
10. Karunarathne, T., Kontopoulos, E., Konstantinidis, I., & Guzmán Carbonell, A. R. (2022). A ca-nonical evidence-based approach for semantic interoperability in cross-border and cross-domain
e-government services. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV 2022), 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1145/3560107.3560299
11. Kubicek, H. (2008). Governance of interoperability in intergovernmental services: Towards an empirical taxonomy. Journal of Systemics Cybernetics and Informatics, 6(6) https://www.academia.edu/8978739/Governance_of_Interoperability_in_Intergovernmental_Services_Towards_an_Empirical_Taxonomy
12. Leiva-Mederos, A., Senso, J. A., Hidalgo-Delgado, Y., & Hipola, P. (2017). Working framework of semantic interoperability for CRIS with heterogeneous data sources. Journal of Documenta-tion, 73(3), 481–499. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-07-2016-0091
13. Moreira, J. M., Cunha, A., & Macedo, N. (2015). An ORCID-based synchronization framework for a national CRIS ecosystem. F1000Research, 4, 181. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.6499.1
14. Myhre, S. L., Kaye, J., Bygrave, L. A., Aanestad, M., Ghanem, B., Mechael, P., & Frøen, J. F. (2016). eRegistries: Governance for electronic maternal and child health registries. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 16, 279. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-1063-0
15. Oliveira, A. A. D., Frade, S., Vieira-Marques, P., Jacinto, T. A. Q., Homem-Silva, P., Lemos-Sebasteão, S., Marques de Oliveira, C. M. G., Ferreira e Sousa, L. F. A., Rocha, J. C. O., & Cruz Correia, R. J. (2025). Challenges and strategies in the implementation of the International Patient Summary in accordance with international standards. A systematic re-view. Proceedings of the Brazilian Symposium on Information Systems. https://doi.org/10.5753/sbsi.2025.246425
16. Otjacques, B., Hitzelberger, P., & Feltz, F. (2007). Interoperability of e-government information systems: Issues of identification and data sharing. Journal of Management Information Sys-tems, 23(4), 29–51. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222230403
17. Paskin, N. (2009). Digital Object Identifier (DOI) system. In Encyclopedia of Library and Infor-mation Sciences (3rd ed.). Taylor & Francis, 1586-1592. https://doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS4-120044418
18. Plante, R. L., Becker, C., Medina-Smith, A., Brady, K. F., Dima, A., Long, B., Bartolo, L., War-ren, J., & Hanisch, R. (2021). Implementing a registry federation for materials science data discovery. Data Science Journal, 20, 15. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2021-015
19. Pristaš, I., Doupi, P., Karanikas, H., Brkić, M., Pleše, B., Zaletel, M., Magajne, M., Zuriaga Llorens, O., & López-Briones, C. (2015). The EU patient registry landscape: Survey of registry profiles through PARENT JA research and framework. Value in Health, 18(7), A562–A563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.09.1836
20. Pristaš, I., Doupi, P., Meglič, M., Karanikas, H., Zaletel, M., Brkić, M., Pleše, B., & Zuriaga Llorens, O. (2014). Supporting interoperable EU patient registries: Survey of registry holders’ needs. Value in Health, 17(7), A446. https://www.valueinhealthjournal.com
21. Santos, F. (2017). The transnational exchange of DNA data: Global standards and local prac-tices. In K. Jakobs & K. Blind (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd EURAS Annual Standardisation Conference. Verlag Mainz, 305–322. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/144048755.pdf
22. Saputro, R., Pappel, I., Vainsalu, H., Lips, S., & Draheim, D. (2020). Prerequisites for the adop-tion of the X-Road interoperability and data exchange framework. A comparative study. In Proceedings of the 2020 Seventh International Conference on eDemocracy & eGovernment (ICEDEG 2020), 216–222. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEDEG48599.2020.9096704
23. Scholze, F., & Maier, J. C. (2012). Establishing a research information system as part of an in-tegrated approach to information management: Best practice at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT). LIBER Quarterly, 21(2), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.8019
24. Sousa Pinto, C., Simões, C., & Amaral, L. A. M. (2014). CERIF — Is the standard helping to improve CRIS? Procedia Computer Science, 33, 80–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2014.06.012
25. Valentić, M., Pleše, B., Pristaš, I., & Ivanković, D. (2017). Addressing the data linking challeng-es: Interviewing for best practices in patient registry interoperability. Methods of Information in Medicine, 56(5), 407–413. https://doi.org/10.3414/ME16-02-0029
26. Van Compernolle, M., De Vocht, L., Goedertier, S., Loutas, N., Verborgh, R., Mannens, E., Mechant, P., Peristeras, V., & Van de Walle, R. (2016). State-of-the-art assessment on the im-plementations of international core data models for public administrations. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV 2016), 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1145/2910019.2910027
27. Venugopal, N., & Saberwal, G. (2021). A comparative analysis of important public clinical trial registries, and a proposal for an interim ideal one. PLoS ONE, 16(5), e0251191. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251191
28. Weigel, T., Lautenschlager, M., Toussaint, F., & Kindermann, S. (2013). A framework for ex-tended persistent identification of scientific assets. Data Science Journal, 12, 10–22. doi: 10.2481/dsj.12-036
