Cutting NSF Is Like Liquidating Your Finest Investment
Look closely at your mobile phone or tablet. Touch-screen technology, speech recognition, digital sound recording and the internet were all developed using […]
Andy Tattersall Identifies the Four Styles of Research Communication
Research communication can often seem like a monolith, if you want to take your research beyond the walls of the university then do x-y-z. As Andy Tattersall describes, there are in fact many hands and styles of work that contribute to effective research communications.
How to Run an Academic Writing Retreat
Since it started in 2011, Academic Writing Month has seen a growth of workshops and initiatives aimed at helping researchers to prioritise […]
Questions to Ask When Choosing New Research Tools
Academia has become increasingly reliant on third-party tools and technologies to carry out research processes. Andy Tattersall suggests a series of straightforward questions researchers should ask themselves before choosing a new technology for use in their research.
Book Review: Social Media for Academics
Reviewer Andy Tattersall welcomes ‘Social Media for Academics’ as a balanced and thoughtful guide for academics that outlines the wheres and whys of how to start with an online presence and how to avoid getting it wrong from the start.
Peer Review Has Problems. Let’s Fix Them
In a conclusion to his two earlier articles on post-publication peer review, Andy Tattersall argues that while new ways to measure scholarly value may not be perfect yet, it’s still high time to start introducing them more widely.
A Guided Tour of Post-Publication Review Sites
Andy Tattersall continues his discussion of post-publication peer review and provides an overview of the main tools and sites, from publisher platforms to independent forums, offering some kind of comment, discussion or review system for scholarly content.
Let’s Dissect Post-Publication Peer Review
Andy Tattersall looks at the shortcomings and opportunities of post-publication review online and picks apart the differences between reviewing, discussing and commenting in a scholarly context.
