This paper contains a critical edition of an unpublished Sanskrit play
preserved in an incomplete Nepalese manuscript dated to 1382. In the
introduction an attempt is made to determine when and where the play might have
been written, and on what possible sources the plot is based.
The credibility of the publication system in science is determined in large part by the precision of the manuscript review process. Studies on the precision of the review process in scientific journals have reported conflicting results. This paper reviews those studies and re-examines the data reported. The findings indicate that highly selective decision-making with imprecise reviewers results in outcomes that are only slightly better than chance.
The manuscript Brussels Bibliothèque royale II 3824 is a chant manuscript in French notational style. It was written for Saint-Bénigne of Dijon. The writing of the manuscript dates it after 1228 and before 1288. The appearance of the gradual, Sacerdotes eius, twice in close placement to one another (folio 244r, 255 v) is to be regarded as unusual. It seems probable that the Brussels manuscript was copied from one or more exemplars. The important manuscript, Montpellier H 159 also originated in Dijon. There are several minor differences between the readings of Sacerdotes eius in the two manuscripts. The melodic versions are not identical. They are not organized in the same fashion. The appearance of two variant versions of Sacerdotes eius is tied to the copying process, either from one or more exemplars. The copying process was wedded to the process of faithful copying rather than critical editing.
The article introduces a manuscript organically related to the 1416 visit of King Sigismund to England that has so far been unknown in Hungarian scholarship, moreover, its iconographic evidence, i.e. its ink drawings have not been sufficiently investigated in the international Sigismund-historiography. On surface level the textual references and the iconographic representation provide evidence for the Anglo-Hungarian, Anglo-German relations of the early fifteenth century. On the other hand, it also shed light to the Anglo-Continental relations of the 1480s–90s, the reign of King Richard III (1483–85). The so-calledWarwick-, or Rous Roll, a Middle English codex attributed to the household genealogist of the earls of Warwick, John Rous, also has a Latin variant – the Lancastrian Roll – held at the College of Arms (the college of the Garter King of Arms, collegium armorum) in London. The Pageant has been dated to varying dates between 1483 and 1492, though most scholars agree that the most probable date is between 1483 and 1485, the reign of Richard III. The Rous Rolls are dated a bit earlier, to the late 1470s or early 1480s. The British Library Catalogue puts the English roll between 1483 and 1485. The Latin manuscript might be even made earlier, between 1477 and 1485. All three narratives report on the close and even intimate relationship between the earl and King Sigismund of Luxemburg of Hungary, but from the point of view of Hungarian memoriae regum the first one, the Beauchamp Pageant is the most significant since it has precious iconographic evidence on the political activity, the court and the entourage of King Sigismund and Queen Barbara during the Council of Constance. Beyond giving an overview of the manuscript, this study aims to investigate how and from where the author and illuminator could have learnt of and gathered information on the Hungarian relations of the earl and on what grounds the artist portrayed King Sigismund.
This contribution presents the concept of 'seven heavens' as preserved by eight manuscripts of Muhammad ibn 'Abdallah al-Kisâ'ï's collections of Islamic religious tales Kitab A’ğāi’b al-MalakUt and Qisas al-Anbiyā It focuses on and compares the contents and composition of the chapter devoted to the topic and analyses the variations in the mss., which shed light on the way the tales are transmitted. Some of them represent variability in the original information, whereas others (including significant semantic shifts) may easily have emerged as a result of even minor scribal lapses.
This paper investigates the extent to which staff editors’ evaluations of submitted manuscripts—that is, internal evaluations
carried out before external peer reviewing—are valid. To answer this question we utilized data on the manuscript reviewing
process at the journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition. The results of this study indicate that the initial internal evaluations are valid. Further, it appears that external review
is indispensable for the decision on the publication worthiness of manuscripts: (1) For the majority of submitted manuscripts,
staff editors are uncertain about publication worthiness; (2) there is a statistically significant proportional difference
in “Rejection” between the editors' initial evaluation and the final editorial decision (after peer review); (3) three-quarters
of the manuscripts that were rated negatively at the initial internal evaluation but accepted for publication after the peer
review had far above-average citation counts.
The fifteenth-century manuscript Suppl. Gr. 45 (Austrian National Library, ÖNB, Vienna) contains an extensive Greek-Latin dictionary, where one can find a great number of marginal notes written by different hands and in different languages (Greek, Latin and Italian). Approximately sixty of these glossary notes are quotations from the well-known Byzantine code of law, the Basilika (9th century), which was initiated by Emperor Basil I and completed under the reign of his successor, Leo VI the Wise. In my paper, I intend to examine these marginal notes and argue that their direct source text is not the monumental code of law, the Basilika itself, but rather its abridged version from the 10th cent., the SynopsisMaior Basilicorum.
The Hungarian (Székely) Gábor Bálint of Szentkatolna (1844–1913) was one of the first researchers of Kalmyk and Khalkha vernacular language, folklore and ethnography. His valuable records are written in a very accurate transcription and include the specimens of Kalmyk and Khalkha spoken languages, folklore material and ethnographic narratives, and a comparative grammar of western and eastern Mongolian languages. Bálint’s manuscripts had not been released until recent years when Ágnes Birtalan published his Comparative Grammar in 2009 and the Kalmyk corpus with a comprehensive analysis in 2011.
The present article aims to give an introduction to Bálint’s ethnographic materials recorded among the Kalmyks (1871–1872) and Khalkhas (1873). Despite the similar economic and cultural milieu the two ethnic groups lived in, there is considerable difference between the Kalmyk and Khalkha text corpora. Besides presenting and systematising Bálint’s ethnographic material, I shall try to clarify the reason why this significant divergence emerges between the two text corpora. Specimens of a particular phase of the wedding ceremony are represented as examples from both text corpora.
Authors:Lutz Bornmann, Irina Nast, and Hans-Dieter Daniel
The case of Dr. Hwang Woo Suk, the South Korean stem-cell researcher, is arguably the highest profile case in the history
of research misconduct. The discovery of Dr. Hwang’s fraud led to fierce criticism of the peer review process (at Science). To find answers to the question of why the journal peer review system did not detect scientific misconduct (falsification
or fabrication of data) not only in the Hwang case but also in many other cases, an overview is needed of the criteria that
editors and referees normally consider when reviewing a manuscript. Do they at all look for signs of scientific misconduct
when reviewing a manuscript? We conducted a quantitative content analysis of 46 research studies that examined editors’ and
referees’ criteria for the assessment of manuscripts and their grounds for accepting or rejecting manuscripts. The total of
572 criteria and reasons from the 46 studies could be assigned to nine main areas: (1) ‘relevance of contribution,’ (2) ‘writing
/ presentation,’ (3) ‘design / conception,’ (4) ‘method / statistics,’ (5) ‘discussion of results,’ (6) ‘reference to the
literature and documentation,’ (7) ‘theory,’ (8) ‘author’s reputation / institutional affiliation,’ and (9) ‘ethics.’ None of the criteria or reasons that were assigned to the nine main areas refers to or is related to possible falsification or
fabrication of data. In a second step, the study examined what main areas take on high and low significance for editors and
referees in manuscript assessment. The main areas that are clearly related to the quality of the research underlying a manuscript
emerged in the analysis frequently as important: ‘theory,’ ‘design / conception’ and ‘discussion of results.’