Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39021948›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

Path of excellence: A co-authorship network analysis of European Research Council grant winners in social sciences.

Anna Urbanovics, István Márkusz, Gergely Palla, Péter Pollner, Péter Sasvári

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Anna UrbanovicsFaculty of Public Governance and International Studies, Ludovika University of Public Service, Ludovika Square 2, Budapest, H-1083, Hungary.
István MárkuszDept. of Biological Physics, Eötvös Lóránd University, Pázmány P. stny. 1/A, Budapest, H-1117, Hungary.
Gergely PallaDept. of Biological Physics, Eötvös Lóránd University, Pázmány P. stny. 1/A, Budapest, H-1117, Hungary.
Péter PollnerMTA-ELTE Statistical and Biological Physics Research Group, Pázmány P. stny. 1/A, Budapest, H-1117, Hungary.
Péter SasváriFaculty of Mechanical Engineering and Informatics, University of Miskolc, Miskolc-Egyetemváros, H-3515, Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The international scientific community puts an ever-growing emphasis on research excellence and performance evaluation. So does the European Union with its flagship research excellence grant scheme organised by the European Research Council. This paper aims to provide an in-depth analysis of one of the ERC's thematic panels within the social sciences, namely the SH2 "Political Science" panel. The analysis is based on empirical, statistical methods, and network analysis tools to gain insights about the grant winners' publication patterns and their coauthor networks. The results draw up an academic career track of the grantees based on quantitative publication patterns and performance. Besides, a change in authorship can be observed, which is proven by the formation of new groups and intensifying intra-group collaboration patterns in the case of all three grant types. However, the ERC grant serves different functions for the winners of three different categories: for the Starting Grant winners, it offers the possibility to kick off and establish their research group, for the Consolidator Grant winners, it opens up new opportunities to extend their co-authorship network, and for the Advanced Grant winners, it offers the chance to start a new collaboration.

Indexed as

Co-authorship networkCommunity findingEuropean research councilResearch excellenceSocial sciences

Identifiers

PMID39021948
PMCPMC11252591

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.