We introduce the dominance dimension principle and the parameterized family of criteria for the assessment of publication/citation profiles it generates. We show
that by a suitable choice of parameters dominance dimension may specialize to the most widely known and used of those impact
scores for the scientific output of authors which disallow endogenous reputation effects, including the Durfee- or h-number,
the publication number and the citation number.
According to Cas Mudde, we live in a “populist Zeitgeist”. The paper argues that not just the 21st, but also the 20th century is about populism. In the first section I elaborate the theoretical background of populism, which is claimed to be a never-ending phenomenon: here, various notions of populism are analysed; I investigate the relationship between democracy and populism; and I refer to the biopolitical framework of populism (called biopopulism) as well. This theoretical framework will be used to analyse Communist populism in Hungary. I elaborate the populism of the Horthyera (1920-1944) in the context of Communist populism. Then I analyse the case of Communist populism in Hungary (1948-1989) according to the following aspects: in the context of the working class and the bourgeois elite; the biopolitical character of the regime; goulash Communism as populist legitimacy; and the viewpoint of socialist patriotism. The main aspect of Communist populism is summarized at the end of the third section, and I briefly refer to the afterlife of Communist populism as a nostalgic phenomenon. The regimes analysed in this study aimed to govern the entire life of the citizens, which is why biopopulism is a useful analytical concept. The biopopulist framework shows that the investigation of the historical backgrounds of populism is necessary to understand contemporary populist tendencies.
Editors of peer-reviewed journals obtain recommendations from peer reviewers as guidance in deciding upon the suitability
of a submitted manuscript for publication. To investigate whether the number of reviewers used by an editor affects the rate
at which manuscripts are rejected, 500 manuscripts submitted to Monthly Weather Review during 15.5 months in 2007–2008 were examined. Two and three reviewers were used for 306 and 155 manuscripts, respectively
(92.2% of all manuscripts). Rejection rates for initial decisions and final decisions were not significantly different whether
two or three reviewers were used. Manuscripts with more reviewers did not spend more rounds in review or have different rejection
rates at each round. The results varied by editor, however, with some editors rejecting more two-reviewer manuscripts and
others rejecting more three-reviewer manuscripts. Editors described using their scientific expertise in the decision-making
process, either in determining the number of reviews to be sought or in making decisions once the reviews were received, approaches
that differ from that of relying purely upon reviewer agreement as reported previously in the literature. A simple model is
constructed for three decision-making strategies for editors: rejection when all reviewers recommend rejection, rejection
when any reviewer recommends rejection, and rejection when a majority of reviewers recommend rejection. By plotting the probability
of reviewer rejection against the probability of editor rejection, the decision-making process can be graphically illustrated,
demonstrating that, for this dataset, editors are likely to reject a manuscript when any reviewer recommends rejection.