0000000000026584

AUTHOR

Ana Marušić

showing 6 related works from this author

Unlock ways to share data on peer review

2020

Peer review is the defining feature of scholarly communication. In a 2018 survey of more than 11, 000 researchers, 98% said that they considered peer review important or extremely important for ensuring the quality and integrity of scholarly communication.

0303 health sciencesMultidisciplinarybusiness.industry05 social sciencesdata miningPublic relations050905 science studiesResearch managementBibliometrics ; Scientometrics ; Research Integrity03 medical and health sciencesWork (electrical)Publishingpeer review data miningpeer reviewSociology0509 other social sciencesbusiness030304 developmental biology
researchProduct

Fragments of peer review: A quantitative analysis of the literature (1969-2015)

2018

This paper examines research on peer review between 1969 and 2015 by looking at records indexed from the Scopus database. Although it is often argued that peer review has been poorly investigated, we found that the number of publications in this field doubled from 2005. A half of this work was indexed as research articles, a third as editorial notes and literature reviews and the rest were book chapters or letters. We identified the most prolific and influential scholars, the most cited publications and the most important journals in the field. Co-authorship network analysis showed that research on peer review is fragmented, with the largest group of co-authors including only 2.1% of the wh…

0301 basic medicineScience and Technology WorkforceResearch Quality Assessmentlcsh:MedicineCareers in ResearchPeer review co-authorship collaboration communityCitation analysisCentralityData MiningSociologylcsh:ScienceMultidisciplinary05 social sciencesScientometricsco-authorshipResearch AssessmentKnowledge sharingProfessionsCitation AnalysiscommunityNetwork AnalysisResearch ArticleComputer and Information SciencesScience PolicyAbstracting and IndexingPeer ReviewAbstracting and Indexing as Topic ; Animals ; Data Mining ; Databases Bibliographic ; History 20th Century ; History 21st Century ; Humans ; Peer ReviewScopusLibrary science050905 science studiesResearch and Analysis MethodsHistory 21st Century03 medical and health sciencesAnimalsHumansScientific Publishinglcsh:RScientometricsHistory 20th CenturyDatabases Bibliographiccollaboration030104 developmental biologyQuantitative analysis (finance)People and PlacesScientistslcsh:QPopulation Groupings0509 other social sciencesScientific publishingCentrality
researchProduct

Effects of seniority, gender and geography on the bibliometric output and collaboration networks of European Research Council (ERC) grant recipients.

2019

Assessing the success and performance of researchers is a difficult task, as their grant output is influenced by a series of factors, including seniority, gender and geographical location of their host institution. In order to assess the effects of these factors, we analysed the publication and citation outputs, using Scopus and Web of Science, and the collaboration networks of European Research Council (ERC) starting (junior) and advanced (senior) grantees. For this study, we used a cohort of 355 grantees from the Life Sciences domain of years 2007-09. While senior grantees had overall greater publication output, junior grantees had a significantly greater pre-post grant award increase in …

Citation analysis ; research grants: peer reviewComputer and Information SciencesBiomedical ResearchDatabases FactualScience PolicyPeer ReviewScienceScopusResearch GrantsBibliometricsResearch and Analysis Methods050905 science studiesResearch FundingDatabase and Informatics MethodsCitation analysis0502 economics and businessCentralityHumansSeniorityDatabase SearchingLocationPublishingMedical educationMultidisciplinarybusiness.industryEuropean researchFinancing Organized05 social sciencesQRGender IdentityResearch AssessmentAuthorshipEuropeBibliometricsPublishingCitation AnalysisMedicine0509 other social sciencesbusinessCitationNetwork Analysis050203 business & managementResearch ArticlePLoS ONE
researchProduct

Author response: Large-scale language analysis of peer review reports

2020

Scale (ratio)Computer scienceLanguage analysisData science
researchProduct

Does reviewing experience reduce disagreement in proposals evaluation? Insights from Marie Skłodowska-Curie and COST Actions

2021

Abstract We have limited understanding of why reviewers tend to strongly disagree when scoring the same research proposal. Thus far, research that explored disagreement has focused on the characteristics of the proposal or the applicants, while ignoring the characteristics of the reviewers themselves. This article aims to address this gap by exploring which reviewer characteristics most affect disagreement among reviewers. We present hypotheses regarding the effect of a reviewer’s level of experience in evaluating research proposals for a specific granting scheme, that is, scheme reviewing experience. We test our hypotheses by studying two of the most important research funding programmes i…

project evaluation ; peer review ; reliability ; reviewing experience ; reviewers disagreement ; MSCA and COST Actions05 social sciencesCurie0509 other social sciencesLibrary and Information Sciences050905 science studies050904 information & library sciencesPsychologyVDP::Humanities: 000EducationLaw and economics
researchProduct

Publishing: Journals could share peer-review data

2017

Peer Review ResearchPublishing0301 basic medicineMultidisciplinarybusiness.industryComputer sciencePeer Review05 social sciencesMEDLINELibrary science050905 science studies03 medical and health sciences030104 developmental biologyText miningPublishingPeriodicals as Topic0509 other social sciencesbusinessNature
researchProduct