The two webpages are worth looking at, especially if you’re an early career researcher:
The library is running a number of research related training sessions in January and February which are linked to the Vitae Research Development Framework. The sessions are aimed at all academic staff and researchers.
NTU Publications Strategy
This session will introduce you to the new NTU Publications Strategy and the key issues dominating the research and publication landscapes.
Grab their attention! Social media, you and your research
This is an introduction to the ways in which researchers might develop an online profile. It will outline the uses of Social Media, as well as more traditional academic networks, for raising your profile and drawing attention to your research output.
Get your research cited: the Open Access route
Want to know more about how to raise your research profile and increase your citations? This session will explain what OA is and outline the current OA landscape, explore the arguments for and against it, as well as discussing why you should make use of OA and how to publish your work via this channel.
Making your thesis copyright compliant
This session raises awareness of issues surrounding copyright and encourages you to reflect on the implications of third party copyright, particularly in relation to the development of your thesis and its eligibility for inclusion in NTU’s Institutional Repository (IRep).
Book onto any (or all) of these sessions in the Academic Practice section on the CPLD website at http://www.ntu.ac.uk/apps/cpld/cpld_events/UI/events.aspx?&page=1&cat=1.
The following study demonstrates that reading comprehension isn’t inhibited by technology:
Margolin, S. J., Driscoll, C., Toland, M. J. and Kegler, J. L. (2013), E-readers, Computer Screens, or Paper: Does Reading Comprehension Change Across Media Platforms?. Applied Cognitive Psychology doi: 10.1002/acp.2930
Type the doi into a search engine to access the full article.
According to recent research, articles in Wikipedia are harder to read than those in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. This conclusion was derived from analysis of sentence length, the number of occurrences of popular words, and the claim that Wikipedia articles are often written by experts who put accuracy above readability. This surprising (to me at any rate) revelation was reported in the New Scientist (15 December 2012).