@article{Kałczewiak2021,
  author    = {Kałczewiak, Mariusz},
  title     = {When the "Ostjuden" returned},
  series = {Naharaim : Zeitschrift f{\"u}r deutsch-j{\"u}dische Literatur und Kulturgeschichte},
  volume    = {15},
  journal   = {Naharaim : Zeitschrift f{\"u}r deutsch-j{\"u}dische Literatur und Kulturgeschichte},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {De Gruyter},
  address   = {Berlin},
  issn      = {1862-9148},
  doi       = {10.1515/naha-2020-0015},
  pages     = {287 -- 309},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {This article examines the dynamics that allowed the derogatory term "Ostjuden" to reappear in academic writing in post-Holocaust Germany. This article focuses on the period between 1980's and 2000's, complementing earlier studies that focused on the emergence of the term "Ostjuden" and on the complex representations of Eastern European Jews in Imperial and later Weimar Germany. It shows that, despite its well-evidenced discriminatory history, the term "Ostjuden" re-appeared in the scholarly writing in German and has also found its way into German-speaking public history and journalism. This article calls for applying the adjectival term "osteuropaische Juden" (Eastern European Jews), using a term that neither essentializes Eastern European Jews nor presents them in an oversimplified and uniform manner.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RojahnWeberGronau2023,
  author    = {Rojahn, Marcel and Weber, Edzard and Gronau, Norbert},
  title     = {Towards a standardization in scheduling models},
  series = {International journal of industrial and systems engineering},
  volume    = {17},
  journal   = {International journal of industrial and systems engineering},
  number    = {6},
  publisher = {Inderscience Enterprises},
  address   = {Gen{\`e}ve},
  issn      = {1748-5037},
  pages     = {401 -- 408},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {Terminology is a critical instrument for each researcher. Different terminologies for the same research object may arise in different research communities. By this inconsistency, many synergistic effects get lost. Theories and models will be more understandable and reusable if a common terminology is applied. This paper examines the terminological (in)consistence for the research field of job-shop scheduling by a literature review. There is an enormous variety in the choice of terms and mathematical notation for the same concept. The comparability, reusability and combinability of scheduling methods is unnecessarily hampered by the arbitrary use of homonyms and synonyms. The acceptance in the community of used variables and notation forms is shown by means of a compliance quotient. This is proven by the evaluation of 240 scientific publications on planning methods.},
  language  = {en}
}