TY  - JOUR
AU  - Drvenica, Ivana
AU  - Dekanski, Aleksandar
AU  - Budjevac, Nevena
AU  - Umeljic, Ivan
AU  - Nedić, Olgica
PY  - 2019
UR  - https://cer.ihtm.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/3292
AB  - Velika brzina stvaranja naučnih informacija u poslednjih nekoliko godina nameće potrebu za povećanjem broja stručnih recenzenata, posebno što recenziranje dobija novu dimenziju važnosti i u svetlu rastućeg broja prepoznatih plagijata i izmisljenih rezultata. Potencijalno rešenje potrebe za povećanjem broja recenzenata je sistematska edukacija doktoranada i mladih istraživača, posebno u zemljama razvoju. Prema podacima sa četiri državna univerziteta u Srbiji (u Beogradu, Novom Sadu, Nišu i Kragujevcu) i jednog privatnog univerziteta (Univerzitet Singidunum), postoji niz doktorskih kurseva koji studente obrazuju o načinu sprovođenja istraživanja, nekoliko o tome kako da pišu naučne publikacije, ali samo jedan od njih skromno osposobljava studente za recenziranje naučnih radova. Dakle, U Srbiji ogromni potencijal doktoranada i mladih istraživača nije pravilno prepoznat i usmeren ka stvaranju kvalifikovane populacije recenzenata. Sa idejom da doprinesemo svetskim trendovima na polju unapređenja recenziranja, predstavili smo pilot seminar na univerzitetima u Beogradu, Novom Sadu, Nišu i Kragujevcu u Srbiji u periodu od oktobra 2017. do aprila 2018. godine. Seminar u organizaciji Centra za promociju nauke obuhvatio je četiri predavanja koja su se bavila: (i) osnovnim aspektima procesa recenziranja, (ii) etičkim pitanjima, (iii) društvenim značajem i (iv) priznavanjem doprinosa recenzenata. Od ukupnog broja polaznika koji je iznosio 275, većina (84 %) se sastojala od doktoranada i mladih istraživača. Nakon seminara, učesnici su zamoljeni da izvrše test recenziju i popune anketu o kvalitetu seminara. Izveštaji o recenziji primljeni su od 82 osobe (od 275 polaznika). Od tri greške koje su namerno unete u tekst, sve greške primetilo je manje od 10 % ispitanika. Analiza ankete (160 odgovora) pokazala je da je 92% ispitanika izjavilo da su stekli nova znanja tokom seminara i ohrabrilo nastavak takve edukacije. Seminar je ponovljen 2019. g. na inicijativu Narodne biblioteke Srbije povodom globalnog događaja "Nedelja recenziranja 2019" i od anketiranih 105 novih polaznika, 94 % je iznelo stav o korisnosti obrazovanja o recenziranju i podržalo ideju o jačanju akademskih kompetencija za recenziranje kroz uvođenje obaveznog predmeta tokom doktorskih studija u Srbiji. Nadamo se da će se predstavnici akademske zajednice iz različitih naučnih disciplina pridružiti ovoj inicijativi i doprineti formiranju kurseva o recenziranju koji odgovaraju specifičnim potrebama svake naučne oblasti.
PB  - Association of the Chemical Engineers of Serbia
T2  - Hemijska industrija
T1  - Is there a need for systematic education on peer-reviewing in Serbia?
T1  - Da li postoji potreba za sistematskom edukacijom o recenziranju u Srbiji?
VL  - 73
IS  - 5
SP  - 275
EP  - 279
DO  - 10.2298/HEMIND191020029D
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Drvenica, Ivana and Dekanski, Aleksandar and Budjevac, Nevena and Umeljic, Ivan and Nedić, Olgica",
year = "2019",
abstract = "Velika brzina stvaranja naučnih informacija u poslednjih nekoliko godina nameće potrebu za povećanjem broja stručnih recenzenata, posebno što recenziranje dobija novu dimenziju važnosti i u svetlu rastućeg broja prepoznatih plagijata i izmisljenih rezultata. Potencijalno rešenje potrebe za povećanjem broja recenzenata je sistematska edukacija doktoranada i mladih istraživača, posebno u zemljama razvoju. Prema podacima sa četiri državna univerziteta u Srbiji (u Beogradu, Novom Sadu, Nišu i Kragujevcu) i jednog privatnog univerziteta (Univerzitet Singidunum), postoji niz doktorskih kurseva koji studente obrazuju o načinu sprovođenja istraživanja, nekoliko o tome kako da pišu naučne publikacije, ali samo jedan od njih skromno osposobljava studente za recenziranje naučnih radova. Dakle, U Srbiji ogromni potencijal doktoranada i mladih istraživača nije pravilno prepoznat i usmeren ka stvaranju kvalifikovane populacije recenzenata. Sa idejom da doprinesemo svetskim trendovima na polju unapređenja recenziranja, predstavili smo pilot seminar na univerzitetima u Beogradu, Novom Sadu, Nišu i Kragujevcu u Srbiji u periodu od oktobra 2017. do aprila 2018. godine. Seminar u organizaciji Centra za promociju nauke obuhvatio je četiri predavanja koja su se bavila: (i) osnovnim aspektima procesa recenziranja, (ii) etičkim pitanjima, (iii) društvenim značajem i (iv) priznavanjem doprinosa recenzenata. Od ukupnog broja polaznika koji je iznosio 275, većina (84 %) se sastojala od doktoranada i mladih istraživača. Nakon seminara, učesnici su zamoljeni da izvrše test recenziju i popune anketu o kvalitetu seminara. Izveštaji o recenziji primljeni su od 82 osobe (od 275 polaznika). Od tri greške koje su namerno unete u tekst, sve greške primetilo je manje od 10 % ispitanika. Analiza ankete (160 odgovora) pokazala je da je 92% ispitanika izjavilo da su stekli nova znanja tokom seminara i ohrabrilo nastavak takve edukacije. Seminar je ponovljen 2019. g. na inicijativu Narodne biblioteke Srbije povodom globalnog događaja "Nedelja recenziranja 2019" i od anketiranih 105 novih polaznika, 94 % je iznelo stav o korisnosti obrazovanja o recenziranju i podržalo ideju o jačanju akademskih kompetencija za recenziranje kroz uvođenje obaveznog predmeta tokom doktorskih studija u Srbiji. Nadamo se da će se predstavnici akademske zajednice iz različitih naučnih disciplina pridružiti ovoj inicijativi i doprineti formiranju kurseva o recenziranju koji odgovaraju specifičnim potrebama svake naučne oblasti.",
publisher = "Association of the Chemical Engineers of Serbia",
journal = "Hemijska industrija",
title = "Is there a need for systematic education on peer-reviewing in Serbia?, Da li postoji potreba za sistematskom edukacijom o recenziranju u Srbiji?",
volume = "73",
number = "5",
pages = "275-279",
doi = "10.2298/HEMIND191020029D"
}

Drvenica, I., Dekanski, A., Budjevac, N., Umeljic, I.,& Nedić, O.. (2019). Is there a need for systematic education on peer-reviewing in Serbia?. in Hemijska industrija
Association of the Chemical Engineers of Serbia., 73(5), 275-279.
https://doi.org/10.2298/HEMIND191020029D

Drvenica I, Dekanski A, Budjevac N, Umeljic I, Nedić O. Is there a need for systematic education on peer-reviewing in Serbia?. in Hemijska industrija. 2019;73(5):275-279.
doi:10.2298/HEMIND191020029D .

Drvenica, Ivana, Dekanski, Aleksandar, Budjevac, Nevena, Umeljic, Ivan, Nedić, Olgica, "Is there a need for systematic education on peer-reviewing in Serbia?" in Hemijska industrija, 73, no. 5 (2019):275-279,
https://doi.org/10.2298/HEMIND191020029D . .

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Drvenica, Ivana
AU  - Bravo, Giangiacomo
AU  - Vejmelka, Lucija
AU  - Dekanski, Aleksandar
AU  - Nedić, Olgica
PY  - 2018
UR  - https://cer.ihtm.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/3001
AB  - The aim of this study was to investigate the opinion of authors on the overall quality and
effectiveness of reviewers’ contributions to reviewed papers. We employed an on-line survey of thirteen journals which publish articles in the field of life, social or technological sciences. Responses received from 193 authors were analysed using a mixed-effects model in order to determine factors deemed the most important in the authors’ evaluation of the reviewers. Qualitative content analysis of the responses to open questions was performed as well. The mixed-effects model revealed that the authors’ assessment of the competence of referees strongly depended on the final editorial decision and that the speed of the review process was influential as well. In Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) analysis on seven questions detailing authors’ opinions, perception of reviewspeed remained a significant predictor of the assessment. In addition, both the perceived competence and helpfulness of the reviewers significantly and positively affected the authors’ evaluation. New models were used to re-check the value of these two factors and it was confirmed that the assessment of the competence of reviewers strongly depended on the final editorial decision.
PB  - MDPI
T2  - Publications
T1  - Peer Review of Reviewers: The Author’s Perspective
VL  - 7
IS  - 1
SP  - 1
DO  - 10.3390/publications7010001
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Drvenica, Ivana and Bravo, Giangiacomo and Vejmelka, Lucija and Dekanski, Aleksandar and Nedić, Olgica",
year = "2018",
abstract = "The aim of this study was to investigate the opinion of authors on the overall quality and
effectiveness of reviewers’ contributions to reviewed papers. We employed an on-line survey of thirteen journals which publish articles in the field of life, social or technological sciences. Responses received from 193 authors were analysed using a mixed-effects model in order to determine factors deemed the most important in the authors’ evaluation of the reviewers. Qualitative content analysis of the responses to open questions was performed as well. The mixed-effects model revealed that the authors’ assessment of the competence of referees strongly depended on the final editorial decision and that the speed of the review process was influential as well. In Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) analysis on seven questions detailing authors’ opinions, perception of reviewspeed remained a significant predictor of the assessment. In addition, both the perceived competence and helpfulness of the reviewers significantly and positively affected the authors’ evaluation. New models were used to re-check the value of these two factors and it was confirmed that the assessment of the competence of reviewers strongly depended on the final editorial decision.",
publisher = "MDPI",
journal = "Publications",
title = "Peer Review of Reviewers: The Author’s Perspective",
volume = "7",
number = "1",
pages = "1",
doi = "10.3390/publications7010001"
}

Drvenica, I., Bravo, G., Vejmelka, L., Dekanski, A.,& Nedić, O.. (2018). Peer Review of Reviewers: The Author’s Perspective. in Publications
MDPI., 7(1), 1.
https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7010001

Drvenica I, Bravo G, Vejmelka L, Dekanski A, Nedić O. Peer Review of Reviewers: The Author’s Perspective. in Publications. 2018;7(1):1.
doi:10.3390/publications7010001 .

Drvenica, Ivana, Bravo, Giangiacomo, Vejmelka, Lucija, Dekanski, Aleksandar, Nedić, Olgica, "Peer Review of Reviewers: The Author’s Perspective" in Publications, 7, no. 1 (2018):1,
https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7010001 . .

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Nedić, Olgica
AU  - Drvenica, Ivana
AU  - Ausloos, M.
AU  - Dekanski, Aleksandar
PY  - 2018
UR  - https://cer.ihtm.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/2394
AB  - The purpose of this paper is to introduce a model for measuring the efficiency in managing peer-review of scientific manuscripts by editors. The approach employed is based on the assumption that the editorial aim is to manage publication with high efficiency, employing the least amount of editorial resources. Efficiency is defined in this research as a measure based on 7 variables. An on-line survey was constructed and editors of journals originating from Serbia regularly publishing articles in the field of chemistry were invited to participate. An evaluation of the model is given based on responses from 24 journals and 50 editors. With this investigation we aimed to contribute to our understanding of the peer-review process and, possibly, offer a tool to improve the “efficiency” in journal editing. The proposed protocol may be adapted by other journals in order to assess the managing potential of editors.
PB  - Serbian Chemical Society
T2  - Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society
T1  - Efficiency in managing peer-review of scientific manuscripts – Editors’ perspective
VL  - 83
IS  - 12
SP  - 1391
EP  - 1405
DO  - 10.2298/JSC180531066N
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Nedić, Olgica and Drvenica, Ivana and Ausloos, M. and Dekanski, Aleksandar",
year = "2018",
abstract = "The purpose of this paper is to introduce a model for measuring the efficiency in managing peer-review of scientific manuscripts by editors. The approach employed is based on the assumption that the editorial aim is to manage publication with high efficiency, employing the least amount of editorial resources. Efficiency is defined in this research as a measure based on 7 variables. An on-line survey was constructed and editors of journals originating from Serbia regularly publishing articles in the field of chemistry were invited to participate. An evaluation of the model is given based on responses from 24 journals and 50 editors. With this investigation we aimed to contribute to our understanding of the peer-review process and, possibly, offer a tool to improve the “efficiency” in journal editing. The proposed protocol may be adapted by other journals in order to assess the managing potential of editors.",
publisher = "Serbian Chemical Society",
journal = "Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society",
title = "Efficiency in managing peer-review of scientific manuscripts – Editors’ perspective",
volume = "83",
number = "12",
pages = "1391-1405",
doi = "10.2298/JSC180531066N"
}

Nedić, O., Drvenica, I., Ausloos, M.,& Dekanski, A.. (2018). Efficiency in managing peer-review of scientific manuscripts – Editors’ perspective. in Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society
Serbian Chemical Society., 83(12), 1391-1405.
https://doi.org/10.2298/JSC180531066N

Nedić O, Drvenica I, Ausloos M, Dekanski A. Efficiency in managing peer-review of scientific manuscripts – Editors’ perspective. in Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society. 2018;83(12):1391-1405.
doi:10.2298/JSC180531066N .

Nedić, Olgica, Drvenica, Ivana, Ausloos, M., Dekanski, Aleksandar, "Efficiency in managing peer-review of scientific manuscripts – Editors’ perspective" in Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society, 83, no. 12 (2018):1391-1405,
https://doi.org/10.2298/JSC180531066N . .

TY  - DATA
AU  - Nedić, Olgica
AU  - Drvenica, Ivana
AU  - Ausloos, M.
AU  - Dekanski, Aleksandar
PY  - 2018
UR  - https://www.shd-pub.org.rs/index.php/JSCS/article/view/6914
UR  - https://www.shd-pub.org.rs/index.php/JSCS/article/view/6914/760
UR  - https://cer.ihtm.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/4535
AB  - Model details; TABLE S-I. Seven multiple-choice questions used to estimate peer-review efficiency; Calculation of peer-review efficiency; Study population to test a model; TABLE S-II. List of journals involved in the study, their referencing in InCites Journal Citation Reports (JCR) and the number of responses received through the survey; Fig. S-1. Efficiency (E2) of the peer-review process in SCI journals, estimated via hexagon construction, using a 6 weight factor scheme for each journal.
PB  - Serbian Chemical Society
T2  - Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society
T1  - Supplementary material to: "Efficiency in managing peer-review of scientific manuscripts – Editors’ perspective"
UR  - https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_cer_4535
ER  - 

@misc{
author = "Nedić, Olgica and Drvenica, Ivana and Ausloos, M. and Dekanski, Aleksandar",
year = "2018",
abstract = "Model details; TABLE S-I. Seven multiple-choice questions used to estimate peer-review efficiency; Calculation of peer-review efficiency; Study population to test a model; TABLE S-II. List of journals involved in the study, their referencing in InCites Journal Citation Reports (JCR) and the number of responses received through the survey; Fig. S-1. Efficiency (E2) of the peer-review process in SCI journals, estimated via hexagon construction, using a 6 weight factor scheme for each journal.",
publisher = "Serbian Chemical Society",
journal = "Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society",
title = "Supplementary material to: "Efficiency in managing peer-review of scientific manuscripts – Editors’ perspective"",
url = "https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_cer_4535"
}

Nedić, O., Drvenica, I., Ausloos, M.,& Dekanski, A.. (2018). Supplementary material to: "Efficiency in managing peer-review of scientific manuscripts – Editors’ perspective". in Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society
Serbian Chemical Society..
https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_cer_4535

Nedić O, Drvenica I, Ausloos M, Dekanski A. Supplementary material to: "Efficiency in managing peer-review of scientific manuscripts – Editors’ perspective". in Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society. 2018;.
https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_cer_4535 .

Nedić, Olgica, Drvenica, Ivana, Ausloos, M., Dekanski, Aleksandar, "Supplementary material to: "Efficiency in managing peer-review of scientific manuscripts – Editors’ perspective"" in Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society (2018),
https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_cer_4535 .

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Dekanski, Aleksandar
AU  - Drvenica, Ivana
AU  - Nedić, Olgica
PY  - 2017
UR  - https://cer.ihtm.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/2069
AB  - A review process is a key factor which ensures reliable and accurate presentation of new, useful, and original scientific knowledge to the public. Despite of many shortcomings which this evaluation of scientific work has, it is still an indispensable part of the process of scientific publishing. Different types of reviews have emerged throughout history, but the essence of the process itself has remained unchanged: before publishing, scientific results are subjected to unbiased, competent, and reliable assessment of their validity and originality. Unfortunately, neither worldwide, nor in our country, there is systematic and institutionalized education for performing such responsible task. The knowledge on review process is taught by senior colleagues, or is acquired through personal experience over time. As each young scientist is a potential reviewer, this article Is primarily intended for young people, as a manual, instruction on how to review a scientific paper and what should be kept in mind when the review report is written. After the analysis of the review process, ethical principles to which a reviewer should adhere to are highlighted, and finally, article intends to answer a question: How to review a scientific paper critically, correctly, and objectively? At the end, it is suggested how the review report should look like.
AB  - Postupak recenziranja je ključni element koji obezbeđuje pouzdano i tačno prezentovanje novog, korisnog i originalnog naučnog saznanja javnosti. I pored mnogih nedostataka koje ovakvo vrednovanje naučnog rada ima, ono je do danas nezamenjivi deo procesa publikovanja rezultata naučnih istraživanja. Tokom istorije razvijale su se različite vrste recenziranja, ali suština samog procesa je ostala nepromenjena: pre publikovanja rezultati se podvrgavaju nepristrasnoj, kompetentnoj i pouzdanoj oceni valjanosti, vrednosti i originalnosti. Nažalost, ni u svetu, a pogotovo kod nas, skoro da ne postoji sistematsko i institucionalizovano obrazovanje za obavljanje ovog odgovornog zadatka. Znanje i praksa se preuzimaju od starijih kolega, ili se stiču vremenom. Kako je svaki mladi naučnik potencijalni recenzent, ovaj tekst je namenjen pre svega mladima, kao priručnik, uputstvo kako recenzirati naučni rad i šta sve treba imati u vidu kada se piše recenzentski izveštaj. Nakon analize procesa recenziranja, u tekstu su istaknuti etički principi kojih se recenzent treba pridržavati, a zatim je pokušano dati odgovor na pitanje: Kako kritički, korektno i objektivno recenzirati naučni rad? Na kraju, sugerisano je kako recenzentski izveštaj treba da izgleda.
PB  - Belgrade, Serbia : Engineering Society for Corrosion
T2  - Zaštita materijala
T1  - How to review a scientific paper
T1  - Kako recenzirati naučni rad
VL  - 58
IS  - 3
SP  - 259
EP  - 270
DO  - 10.5937/ZasMat1703259D
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Dekanski, Aleksandar and Drvenica, Ivana and Nedić, Olgica",
year = "2017",
abstract = "A review process is a key factor which ensures reliable and accurate presentation of new, useful, and original scientific knowledge to the public. Despite of many shortcomings which this evaluation of scientific work has, it is still an indispensable part of the process of scientific publishing. Different types of reviews have emerged throughout history, but the essence of the process itself has remained unchanged: before publishing, scientific results are subjected to unbiased, competent, and reliable assessment of their validity and originality. Unfortunately, neither worldwide, nor in our country, there is systematic and institutionalized education for performing such responsible task. The knowledge on review process is taught by senior colleagues, or is acquired through personal experience over time. As each young scientist is a potential reviewer, this article Is primarily intended for young people, as a manual, instruction on how to review a scientific paper and what should be kept in mind when the review report is written. After the analysis of the review process, ethical principles to which a reviewer should adhere to are highlighted, and finally, article intends to answer a question: How to review a scientific paper critically, correctly, and objectively? At the end, it is suggested how the review report should look like., Postupak recenziranja je ključni element koji obezbeđuje pouzdano i tačno prezentovanje novog, korisnog i originalnog naučnog saznanja javnosti. I pored mnogih nedostataka koje ovakvo vrednovanje naučnog rada ima, ono je do danas nezamenjivi deo procesa publikovanja rezultata naučnih istraživanja. Tokom istorije razvijale su se različite vrste recenziranja, ali suština samog procesa je ostala nepromenjena: pre publikovanja rezultati se podvrgavaju nepristrasnoj, kompetentnoj i pouzdanoj oceni valjanosti, vrednosti i originalnosti. Nažalost, ni u svetu, a pogotovo kod nas, skoro da ne postoji sistematsko i institucionalizovano obrazovanje za obavljanje ovog odgovornog zadatka. Znanje i praksa se preuzimaju od starijih kolega, ili se stiču vremenom. Kako je svaki mladi naučnik potencijalni recenzent, ovaj tekst je namenjen pre svega mladima, kao priručnik, uputstvo kako recenzirati naučni rad i šta sve treba imati u vidu kada se piše recenzentski izveštaj. Nakon analize procesa recenziranja, u tekstu su istaknuti etički principi kojih se recenzent treba pridržavati, a zatim je pokušano dati odgovor na pitanje: Kako kritički, korektno i objektivno recenzirati naučni rad? Na kraju, sugerisano je kako recenzentski izveštaj treba da izgleda.",
publisher = "Belgrade, Serbia : Engineering Society for Corrosion",
journal = "Zaštita materijala",
title = "How to review a scientific paper, Kako recenzirati naučni rad",
volume = "58",
number = "3",
pages = "259-270",
doi = "10.5937/ZasMat1703259D"
}

Dekanski, A., Drvenica, I.,& Nedić, O.. (2017). How to review a scientific paper. in Zaštita materijala
Belgrade, Serbia : Engineering Society for Corrosion., 58(3), 259-270.
https://doi.org/10.5937/ZasMat1703259D

Dekanski A, Drvenica I, Nedić O. How to review a scientific paper. in Zaštita materijala. 2017;58(3):259-270.
doi:10.5937/ZasMat1703259D .

Dekanski, Aleksandar, Drvenica, Ivana, Nedić, Olgica, "How to review a scientific paper" in Zaštita materijala, 58, no. 3 (2017):259-270,
https://doi.org/10.5937/ZasMat1703259D . .

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Šekularac, Gavrilo
AU  - Košević, Milica
AU  - Drvenica, Ivana
AU  - Dekanski, Aleksandar
AU  - Panić, Vladimir
AU  - Nikolic, Branislav
PY  - 2016
UR  - https://cer.ihtm.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/1932
AB  - Ruthenium oxide coating on titanium was prepared by the sol-gel procedure from well-defined colloidal oxide dispersions synthesized by the microwave (MW)-assisted hydrothermal route under defined temperature and pressure heating conditions. The dispersions were characterized by dynamic light scattering (DLS) measurements and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The electrochemical properties were analyzed as capacitive performances gained by cyclic voltammetry and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy and as the electrocatalytic activity for oxygen evolution from acid solution. The obtained dispersions were polydisperse and contained regular particles and agglomerates of increasing surface energy and decreasing particle size as the MW-assisted heating conditions were intensified. Owing to these features of the precursor dispersions, the obtained coatings had considerably improved capacitive performances and good electrocatalytic activity for oxygen evolution at high overpotentials.
PB  - Springer, New York
T2  - Journal of Solid State Electrochemistry
T1  - Titanium coated with high-performance nanocrystalline ruthenium oxide synthesized by the microwave-assisted sol-gel procedure
VL  - 20
IS  - 11
SP  - 3115
EP  - 3123
DO  - 10.1007/s10008-016-3343-z
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Šekularac, Gavrilo and Košević, Milica and Drvenica, Ivana and Dekanski, Aleksandar and Panić, Vladimir and Nikolic, Branislav",
year = "2016",
abstract = "Ruthenium oxide coating on titanium was prepared by the sol-gel procedure from well-defined colloidal oxide dispersions synthesized by the microwave (MW)-assisted hydrothermal route under defined temperature and pressure heating conditions. The dispersions were characterized by dynamic light scattering (DLS) measurements and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The electrochemical properties were analyzed as capacitive performances gained by cyclic voltammetry and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy and as the electrocatalytic activity for oxygen evolution from acid solution. The obtained dispersions were polydisperse and contained regular particles and agglomerates of increasing surface energy and decreasing particle size as the MW-assisted heating conditions were intensified. Owing to these features of the precursor dispersions, the obtained coatings had considerably improved capacitive performances and good electrocatalytic activity for oxygen evolution at high overpotentials.",
publisher = "Springer, New York",
journal = "Journal of Solid State Electrochemistry",
title = "Titanium coated with high-performance nanocrystalline ruthenium oxide synthesized by the microwave-assisted sol-gel procedure",
volume = "20",
number = "11",
pages = "3115-3123",
doi = "10.1007/s10008-016-3343-z"
}

Šekularac, G., Košević, M., Drvenica, I., Dekanski, A., Panić, V.,& Nikolic, B.. (2016). Titanium coated with high-performance nanocrystalline ruthenium oxide synthesized by the microwave-assisted sol-gel procedure. in Journal of Solid State Electrochemistry
Springer, New York., 20(11), 3115-3123.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10008-016-3343-z

Šekularac G, Košević M, Drvenica I, Dekanski A, Panić V, Nikolic B. Titanium coated with high-performance nanocrystalline ruthenium oxide synthesized by the microwave-assisted sol-gel procedure. in Journal of Solid State Electrochemistry. 2016;20(11):3115-3123.
doi:10.1007/s10008-016-3343-z .

Šekularac, Gavrilo, Košević, Milica, Drvenica, Ivana, Dekanski, Aleksandar, Panić, Vladimir, Nikolic, Branislav, "Titanium coated with high-performance nanocrystalline ruthenium oxide synthesized by the microwave-assisted sol-gel procedure" in Journal of Solid State Electrochemistry, 20, no. 11 (2016):3115-3123,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10008-016-3343-z . .

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Dekanski, Aleksandar
AU  - Drvenica, Ivana
AU  - Nedić, Olgica
PY  - 2016
UR  - https://cer.ihtm.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/2051
AB  - A survey was conducted among editors of journals publishing in the field of chemistry, chemical technology and related topics in Serbia, aiming to collect information on their experience, problems and difficulties during peer-review process. Editors from 22 journals out of 27 that regularly published during 2015 replied. General data on journals were collected from responses obtained from editors-in-chief, whereas all editors (including sub-editors and section editors) participated in a questionnaire concerning peer-review procedure. Additionally, they were asked to evaluate quality of reports and attitude of reviewers, discuss present situation and suggest measures to improve peer-review process. The greatest problems encountered by editors in peer-review process can be summarized as follows: low rate of acceptance to review, low quality of reports, sometimes due to the reviewer's bias or their inability to properly understand the review process. A method used to search for reviewers does not substantially influence the quality of reports. Editors agree that introduction of On-Line processes and creation of precise instructions for reviewers, education of potential reviewers, as well as social, public and professional recognition and appreciation of reviewers' work, are the most important measures to improve the quality of the peer-review process and, consecutively, the quality of published articles and journals.
PB  - Association of the Chemical Engineers of Serbia
T2  - Chemical Industry and Chemical Engineering Quarterly / CICEQ
T1  - Peer-review process in journals dealing with chemistry and related subjects published in Serbia
VL  - 22
IS  - 4
SP  - 491
EP  - 501
DO  - 10.2298/CICEQ160328033D
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Dekanski, Aleksandar and Drvenica, Ivana and Nedić, Olgica",
year = "2016",
abstract = "A survey was conducted among editors of journals publishing in the field of chemistry, chemical technology and related topics in Serbia, aiming to collect information on their experience, problems and difficulties during peer-review process. Editors from 22 journals out of 27 that regularly published during 2015 replied. General data on journals were collected from responses obtained from editors-in-chief, whereas all editors (including sub-editors and section editors) participated in a questionnaire concerning peer-review procedure. Additionally, they were asked to evaluate quality of reports and attitude of reviewers, discuss present situation and suggest measures to improve peer-review process. The greatest problems encountered by editors in peer-review process can be summarized as follows: low rate of acceptance to review, low quality of reports, sometimes due to the reviewer's bias or their inability to properly understand the review process. A method used to search for reviewers does not substantially influence the quality of reports. Editors agree that introduction of On-Line processes and creation of precise instructions for reviewers, education of potential reviewers, as well as social, public and professional recognition and appreciation of reviewers' work, are the most important measures to improve the quality of the peer-review process and, consecutively, the quality of published articles and journals.",
publisher = "Association of the Chemical Engineers of Serbia",
journal = "Chemical Industry and Chemical Engineering Quarterly / CICEQ",
title = "Peer-review process in journals dealing with chemistry and related subjects published in Serbia",
volume = "22",
number = "4",
pages = "491-501",
doi = "10.2298/CICEQ160328033D"
}

Dekanski, A., Drvenica, I.,& Nedić, O.. (2016). Peer-review process in journals dealing with chemistry and related subjects published in Serbia. in Chemical Industry and Chemical Engineering Quarterly / CICEQ
Association of the Chemical Engineers of Serbia., 22(4), 491-501.
https://doi.org/10.2298/CICEQ160328033D

Dekanski A, Drvenica I, Nedić O. Peer-review process in journals dealing with chemistry and related subjects published in Serbia. in Chemical Industry and Chemical Engineering Quarterly / CICEQ. 2016;22(4):491-501.
doi:10.2298/CICEQ160328033D .

Dekanski, Aleksandar, Drvenica, Ivana, Nedić, Olgica, "Peer-review process in journals dealing with chemistry and related subjects published in Serbia" in Chemical Industry and Chemical Engineering Quarterly / CICEQ, 22, no. 4 (2016):491-501,
https://doi.org/10.2298/CICEQ160328033D . .