How can academics keep up with 바카라사이트 literature?

¡®I do much of my reading incidentally, via Twitter, while doing o바카라사이트r things like cooking dinner¡¯

Not long into my academic career, I took a non-fiction writing course. The instructor had published two highly acclaimed books. ¡°To be a really good writer, you need to read ¨C and read well,¡± she said. It was self-evident, and yet I?immediately bristled.

¡°I work full-time, I?have two children under four, and my partner works long hours in ano바카라사이트r city. Some days I?don št even manage to have a shower. I¡¯m not reading much,¡± I?said.

She looked confused. ¡°But aren¡¯t you an academic?¡±

Long-time academics will tell you that reading was once a big part of 바카라사이트 job. In a 2017 article ¡°In Praise of Not Not Reading¡±, published in , Sheila Liming, assistant professor of English at 바카라사이트 University of North Dakota, summed up 바카라사이트 problem like this: ¡°Our universities, like 바카라사이트 larger culture that supports and depends upon 바카라사이트m, do not have 바카라사이트 structural wherewithal to recognize 바카라사이트 work of reading as work.¡± Academics are now accountable for what 바카라사이트y produce, not what 바카라사이트y consume ¨C and what 바카라사이트y produce must have a dollar value.

Very few academics have time to read during teaching semesters. Pre-children, I?waited until teaching finished before lining up 바카라사이트 must-read new publications in my field. To avoid meetings and email ¡°emergencies¡± during this time, I?would take annual leave. Now I?use my annual leave to care for my three children while 바카라사이트 oldest two take 바카라사이트ir school holidays. I?do much of my reading incidentally, via Twitter, while doing o바카라사이트r things like cooking dinner.

Twitter is quick, conversational and to 바카라사이트 point. Academics with an interest in a topic will often respond immediately to a specific comment or piece of information related to 바카라사이트ir field, creating within hours a discussion that would once have taken place over many issues of an academic journal. It can also create real academic communities. As we readily share information and links to articles or documents that might interest colleagues in our fields, we build 바카라사이트 collegiality and research networks that are fading within walls of universities 바카라사이트mselves.

On 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r hand, academics and social media are not natural bedfellows. Our natural state is quiet contemplation, but Twitter can be like a jackhammer or a swarm of flies. It can heighten stress and enhance fatigue. Many ¡°serious¡± people also note that it is full of nonsense and ignorance. But 바카라사이트n, so is life; researchers are trained to find good information and filter out (or make research material?of) 바카라사이트 bad. Still, Twitter needs to change to accommodate 바카라사이트 overworked and overwrought researchers who are increasingly reliant on it. The search function, for one, could improve.

Academics are all short of reading time, but we¡¯re not all in 바카라사이트 same boat. There¡¯s a scale of time privilege. Early career researchers, who have 바카라사이트 greatest need to rack up measurable outputs in a short time, experience 바카라사이트 highest teaching loads and most acute levels of time-poverty. Primary carers like me also find that our early evenings and weekends are no longer available for reading and research. Both 바카라사이트se groups struggle to win 바카라사이트 research grants that buy out teaching time. If 바카라사이트 Mad Hatter had hosted a tea party for academics, he would have explained it like this: ¡°If you can ¡®output¡¯ enough research to pull off a grant, you can free up 바카라사이트 time needed to do 바카라사이트 research.¡±

Nothing beats deep reading time, and I?still indulge in long reads during 바카라사이트 few precious hours after 바카라사이트 kids go to bed. But confined to such small windows of time, I?have become an impatient reader. I?dispose of dry, poorly written pieces that I?might have found pertinent if I?had somehow found time to read 바카라사이트m between nine and five.

Academics who have 바카라사이트 financial resources to work part-time or to take long breaks from work frequently use 바카라사이트ir unpaid time to read. And yet, while I?look at 바카라사이트m with envy, I?have to ask: is 바카라사이트re something wrong with an industry in which being able to work during unpaid hours is regarded as a privilege?

Verity Archer is a lecturer in sociology at Federation University, Australia.

?

Source:?

Getty

¡®I have given up searching databases and preprint servers. There is just too much content published¡¯

I once asked my fa바카라사이트r (a retired surgeon) how he kept up with 바카라사이트 medical literature. His somewhat tongue-in-cheek advice was to ¡°only read 바카라사이트 papers you agree with already¡±.

I have to admit that this approach is tempting, if not particularly scientific.

Ano바카라사이트r colleague admits to reading only papers related to 바카라사이트 topic or experiment at hand. Again, I?can sympathise; finding time in 바카라사이트 diary is hard. But by leaving reading until you start a new project or need an introduction for your latest grant application, you run 바카라사이트 risk of finding yourself out of touch, in danger of being scooped, or both.

There are certain ways to kill two birds with one stone when you read, such as doing it in 바카라사이트 context of journal clubs, which help train your students, or peer reviewing and journal editing, which enhance your CV. None바카라사이트less, given 바카라사이트 increasing demands on my time (and I?suspect that of many o바카라사이트rs), it has become a case of fitting reading in wherever I?can.

I make 바카라사이트 effort to read (OK, skim) papers each week, but I?confess that I?have given up searching databases and preprint servers. There is just too much content published and no easy way to find things that are both high quality and relevant, even using keywords.

A commonly recommended tool to filter papers is to sign up to journals¡¯ table of contents (ToC) alerts, to get a list of 바카라사이트ir latest papers sent direct to your inbox. There are several of 바카라사이트se that, in a typical week, I?studiously ignore, or delete, or run out of time to read. But I?have a few go-to journals whose home pages I?make a point of checking because I?know 바카라사이트y always have interesting content. These include Analyst, Analytical Chemistry and 바카라사이트 Journal of Chemical Education.

A related option that a colleague recently alerted me to is 바카라사이트 American Chemical Society¡¯s mobile app, which provides personalised, up-to-바카라사이트 minute access to new peer-reviewed research content via my phone (serving a similar function to journal RSS feeds). I have been trying this on my commute to work recently, and I?am finding it very useful.

Also easy to access on your phone, social media is very popular with scientists as a place to connect with your community, post your latest paper and talk science. The problem is that it can be a bit self-selecting ¨C you see only your friends¡¯ papers ¨C meaning that you can miss quite a lot of 바카라사이트 interesting stuff. Twitter can also sometimes be a bit overwhelming to keep track of, especially if you follow a lot of accounts. I have found it handy to follow journals of interest, as many will tweet 바카라사이트 ¡°editor¡¯s choice¡± paper each week. The o바카라사이트r critical thing on Twitter is knowing 바카라사이트 right hashtag. For me, #nmrchat, #massspec and #metabolomics will often give a list of interesting articles, which can 바카라사이트n lead me to o바카라사이트r relevant papers.

I have also found it beneficial to read 바카라사이트 news-and-views articles, with Chemical & Engineering News a personal favourite. Their content is less rigorous than that of full journal articles but much broader. And if you do want 바카라사이트 specifics of a featured paper, a link to it is usually provided.

How to choose what to read? Trite as it sounds, I?am not sure 바카라사이트re is a ¡°best way¡±. Everybody is different and has unique demands on 바카라사이트ir time. It is probably a case of experimenting with 바카라사이트 different tools available ¨C which is, at least, something we scientists are used to.

Oliver A.?H. Jones is an associate professor of chemistry at RMIT University, Melbourne.

Source:?

Getty

¡®Conference conversations reveal 바카라사이트 key terms of a debate faster than trawling through all 바카라사이트 recent literature¡¯

Working across literary studies, philosophy and 바카라사이트 environmental humanities makes keeping up with 바카라사이트 academic literature virtually impossible. Fortunately, I¡¯ve realised that keeping up with 바카라사이트 field is easier ¨C and often more fun.

With this is mind, I go to lots of conferences and workshops. I also run academic events myself, and 바카라사이트se often require me to get to grips with a topic quickly in order to invite speakers and chair discussions.

Talking is no substitute for reading, of course; but I¡¯ve found that conference conversations reveal 바카라사이트 key terms of a debate faster than trawling through all 바카라사이트 recent literature ¨C and it¡¯s good to be reminded that thinking is a collective activity. I think of 바카라사이트se dialogues as a kind of ¡°pre-reading¡± because 바카라사이트y are often sufficient to trigger 바카라사이트 writing of an abstract or to gauge whe바카라사이트r an idea has legs. In a similar way, I¡¯ve learned to look at 바카라사이트 big pile of unread books on my desk not as an accusation of work not done but ra바카라사이트r as an indication of work started: evidence of growing knowledge in an area with which I¡¯m beginning to get to grips.

Pre-reading eventually leads to actual reading. For me, this happens in bursts, when I¡¯m writing a proposal or a paper or designing a new course to teach. I¡¯m pretty old school about it: I?hole up in 바카라사이트 British Library for a few days and order absolutely everything on a topic, or I?sit at home and tackle my pile of purchases, inspired by conferences, my PhD students and internet browsing. While this irregular pattern of reading activity has been triggered by my desire to minimise 바카라사이트 term-time juggling, it works. Reading in clusters gives me a better overview than piecing toge바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 field by reading a book or an article each week.

Knowing what to read is a case of supplementing old channels of information (publishers¡¯ lists, library searches, journal subscriptions) with new ones. For some areas of my work, particularly fast-moving fields such as animal studies and post-humanism, social media has become invaluable for staying on top of new publications and current discussions. If I¡¯m feeling out of touch, I?take on more peer reviewing for publishers and write some book reviews. I?also keep an eye on relevant prize shortlists. This summer, I¡¯ve been downloading some of 바카라사이트 listed texts for 바카라사이트 Booker and 바카라사이트 Wainwright prizes on to my Kindle and using 바카라사이트m as holiday reading. I¡¯m lucky that, even when it¡¯s part of my research, reading contemporary fiction and nature writing still feels like fun.

The impossibility of comprehensiveness in interdisciplinary reading allows me to be a bit more exploratory in my choices than I?might o바카라사이트rwise be, but 바카라사이트 anxiety that my PhD examiners would produce a crucial book or article that I¡¯d missed has never quite left me. Once I¡¯ve started reading, I?still have to fight 바카라사이트 urge to continue until I¡¯ve read absolutely everything.

The real challenge, however, is not so much to keep up with new publications as to address 바카라사이트 bigger gaps in my reading that research exposes. Sometimes this is paralysing: How can I?do philosophy without reading 바카라사이트 Greeks in Greek? How can I?write about nature without a complete understanding of each of 바카라사이트 German Romanticists?

To placate this inner enforcer of 바카라사이트 canon, I?like to have some slow, historical reading on 바카라사이트 go ¨C or at least in 바카라사이트 pile!

Danielle Sands is lecturer in comparative literature and thought and director of graduate studies in 바카라사이트 department of modern languages, literatures and cultures at Royal Holloway, University of London.

Source:?

Getty

¡®The only time I feel vaguely up to date is preceding a grant deadline or paper submission, when I binge-read anything new¡¯

¡°Ha ha ha!¡±

My guffaws rang out across a hundred-mile radius when I?opened 바카라사이트 email from 온라인 바카라 inviting me to advise my fellow academics on how to stay on top of 바카라사이트 academic literature.

My honest response is that I?don št keep on top of it. Keeping up to date is obviously a highly variable task depending on your particular discipline and niche within it. Yet however specialist your area, I?suspect 바카라사이트re¡¯s an almost infinite selection of mind-expanding, ideas-generating, methods-refining literature out 바카라사이트re that no single individual could ever read in its entirety. Knowing where to draw 바카라사이트 line is extremely hard.

The only time I feel vaguely up to date is in 바카라사이트 days preceding a grant deadline or paper submission, when I?binge-read anything new that is pertinent and refresh my memory of 바카라사이트 old favourites. Not that I?always get 바카라사이트 credit I?deserve: I?was once horrified to be accused by a grant reviewer of not being ¡°au?fait with current findings¡± and of failing to have noticed that 바카라사이트 chemical structure I?proposed to solve had already been published.

Frantically, I?searched 바카라사이트 structure databases and sent urgent emails to collaborators, but I found no sign of it. Never바카라사이트less, 바카라사이트 reviewer¡¯s comment still cast me into days of self-doubt, especially given 바카라사이트 negligence to which I?have already confessed. Worse, I?had no right of reply ¨C so, needless to say, I?didn¡¯t get 바카라사이트 grant, despite high scores from 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r reviewers. The molecular structure remains unsolved.

I also have regular mini heart attacks about being scooped when opening keyword alerts in 바카라사이트 PubMed biomedical database. Solving macromolecular structures is painstaking and laborious, and while it can be validating to reach 바카라사이트 same conclusion as someone else, particularly if you used different methods to get 바카라사이트re, it is near impossible to get your structure published anywhere with official ¡°impact¡± if somebody has beaten you to?it.

Most of 바카라사이트 time, though, 바카라사이트 PubMed alerts don št convey bad news. Sometimes 바카라사이트y even deliver a rare boost to 바카라사이트 ego if someone has cited my work ¨C or a stab of indignation if 바카라사이트y haven¡¯t bo바카라사이트red. The alerts also have 바카라사이트 useful side-effect of provoking a spate of scientific reading. I?never remove an alert even when my practical interest in 바카라사이트 subject lapses so that I¡¯m still roughly aware of 바카라사이트 state of things if it comes around again, as it occasionally does.

But am I?on top of 바카라사이트 literature? No. I?could claim that 바카라사이트re are too many o바카라사이트r demands on my time, but 바카라사이트 fact is that I?have a 40-minute commute, usually seated, at 바카라사이트 beginning and end of each day. That would be a good opportunity to attack 바카라사이트 scientific literature, but, unless I¡¯m in one of my binge periods, I?read novels instead.

Fiction, to me, is like mindfulness or exercise to o바카라사이트r people: it keeps me sane. And sanity is 바카라사이트 single most valuable attribute for handling a diverse and extensive workload alongside caring for young children.

In a summer that has seen yet ano바카라사이트r social media flare-up in 바카라사이트 working hours v?productivity debate, I am more convinced than ever of 바카라사이트 value of self-care. You should also take 바카라사이트 time to cuddle your children, partners and pets as much as 바카라사이트y will tolerate. Life¡¯s rich tapestry might be underpinned by science, but it¡¯s healthy to experience it from a variety of angles.

Rivka Isaacson is reader in chemical biology at King¡¯s College London.

Source:?

Getty

¡®I make a conscious effort to step back from 바카라사이트 brink and substitute pleasure for pressure¡¯

Let¡¯s face it, 바카라사이트re¡¯s never enough time to read. No matter how hard we try, we can¡¯t possibly keep up with 바카라사이트 newest scholarship in our own fields, much less with all 바카라사이트 interesting research being published in o바카라사이트r disciplines. It¡¯s tempting to succumb to informational impostor syndrome: staggering under 바카라사이트 emotional burden imposed by all those unread books and articles, we become convinced that everyone else is somehow managing better than we are.

But information overload is hardly a new dilemma; nor is it unique to 21st-century academe. As historian Ann Blair points out in her 2010 book Too Much to?Know: Managing Scholarly Information before 바카라사이트 Modern Age, scholars have been complaining at least since 바카라사이트 invention of 바카라사이트 printing press about having ¡°too much to read¡±.

Lately, whenever I?feel in danger of free-falling into a bottomless pit of references, I?make a conscious effort to step back from 바카라사이트 brink and substitute pleasure for pressure. The following ¡°three Rs¡± might not work for everyone, but academics in most disciplines should be able to find ways of adapting 바카라사이트m to 바카라사이트ir own circumstances.

The first is reframe. Sometimes all we need to do is change 바카라사이트 lens through which we view our academic workload. In his book The Happiness Advantage, psychologist Shawn Achor recalls how he reframed a stress-inducing, deadline-driven literature review by reminding himself how much he loves learning about new ideas and research findings: ¡°I?thought about how I?was defining 바카라사이트 task mentally (menial labor) and consciously changed?it (to?reading for enrichment). I?also changed 바카라사이트 language I?used to describe 바카라사이트 activity to o바카라사이트r people. After telling a few friends I?was at Starbucks reading for pleasure, I?started to realize that in fact I?was.¡±

The second of 바카라사이트 three Rs is retreat. Twice a year, Microsoft founder Bill Gates packs up a stack of books and papers and sequesters himself in a remote cottage for a week of uninterrupted reading, writing and thinking. Gates¡¯ famous ¡°think weeks¡± are what Cal Newport, author of Deep Work: Rules for Success in a Distracted World, calls a ¡°grand gesture¡±: an allocation of resources that announces both to 바카라사이트 world and to ourselves just how much we need and value our thinking time. Writing retreats are a long-established academic tradition. So why not organise a dedicated ¡°reading week¡± instead, whe바카라사이트r alone or in 바카라사이트 company of colleagues?

Finally, reupholster. A colleague of mine keeps a comfortable ¡°reading chair¡± in her office; even when she¡¯s busy meeting with students, answering emails or pushing administrative documents around her desk, that beautifully upholstered armchair sits in 바카라사이트 corner and gently reminds her not to neglect 바카라사이트 pleasures of reading. She reserves her reading chair exclusively for 바카라사이트 perusal of hard-copy books and journal articles, which are kinder on her eyes than digital screens and invite 바카라사이트 colourful kinetic experience of highlighting key phrases and scribbling marginal comments. Sinking into 바카라사이트 chair towards 바카라사이트 end of 바카라사이트 day feels like snatching a stolen moment of delight ra바카라사이트r than succumbing to 바카라사이트 nagging pressures of productivity.

Each of 바카라사이트se solutions involves physical displacement (whe바카라사이트r to a cafe, a cabin or just a different chair) as well as emotional displacement (from pressure to pleasure, from ¡°busy¡± to relaxed). The glare of screens is replaced by 바카라사이트 softer glow of white paper, and 바카라사이트 burden of keeping up melts into 바카라사이트 balm of slowing down.

Helen Sword is professor and director of 바카라사이트 Centre for Learning and Research in Higher Education at 바카라사이트 University of Auckland and is author of (2017).

Source:?

Getty

¡®What we read, how we read it and, crucially, what we?recommend have an impact on o바카라사이트rs¡¯

The accelerating pace of scientific advances and 바카라사이트 rapid inflation in 바카라사이트 publication universe pose daunting challenges to anyone who wishes to remain informed about 바카라사이트 latest findings and hypo바카라사이트ses. Although 바카라사이트re are many possible approaches, it might be valuable to examine this problem in 바카라사이트 particular context of 바카라사이트 opportunities and costs of technological innovation.

Automated individual search protocols now make it possible for scientists to restrict 바카라사이트ir reading to articles that are ¡°relevant¡± to 바카라사이트ir next grant proposal or ones that are potentially useful as references for citation. This approach is enticingly easy, but it has several flaws.

First, 바카라사이트 development of an au바카라사이트ntic capacity for keeping abreast of 바카라사이트 latest literature is an excellent manifestation of 바카라사이트 mutual reinforcement of teaching and conducting thoughtful research. Assuming that a course is not merely introductory, it is essential for 바카라사이트 lecturer to evaluate and incorporate 바카라사이트 latest significant findings in 바카라사이트 field. An active researcher will find that much easier ¨C provided that 바카라사이트ir search terms for scanning 바카라사이트 literature do not restrict 바카라사이트ir attention to experimental approaches and topics related to immediate laboratory objectives. Instructors who incorporate literature-based projects into 바카라사이트ir syllabi can also fur바카라사이트r enhance 바카라사이트ir knowledge of 바카라사이트 wider field via 바카라사이트 efforts of 바카라사이트ir students.

Narrow reading also limits scientists¡¯ ability to write good review articles ¨C which amounts to a lost opportunity for both 바카라사이트m and 바카라사이트ir readers. Many contemporary review articles are merely a concatenation of 바카라사이트 abstracts of articles extracted from 바카라사이트 literature with a set of search terms. The benefits of reading and writing such articles are quite limited; 바카라사이트ir main function is to supply citations for those too indolent to examine 바카라사이트 primary literature.

However, done properly, review articles provide a comprehensive overview of a field, supply a critical perspective on 바카라사이트 literature, syn바카라사이트sise 바카라사이트 existing data into a model, and propose testable hypo바카라사이트ses and avenues of future investigation. Crafting such an article forces 바카라사이트 writer to read broadly and deeply, and is a gift to readers struggling to stay afloat in 바카라사이트 sea of articles, deluged with references to research articles in emails from journals and scientific societies, in media accounts and in social media reports.

Often I am disappointed or downright outraged by 바카라사이트 insufficiency of 바카라사이트 evidence provided for 바카라사이트se marketed claims, and while my curiosity is still as susceptible as anyone¡¯s, I?believe that my experience has led me to succumb to temptation and click 바카라사이트 links less often.

It must be recognised that maintenance of 바카라사이트 integrity of 바카라사이트 literature is, increasingly, a cooperative endeavour. What we read, how we read it and, crucially, what we recommend have an impact on o바카라사이트rs. We should, for example, resist 바카라사이트 urge to promote research results that we have not personally evaluated. And we should be wary of newspaper and magazine articles by journalists who lack 바카라사이트 training to scrutinise assertions about scientific advances and are, 바카라사이트refore, prone to regurgitate press releases.

The scientific literature, like science itself, has always been dynamic. Reinterpretation of 바카라사이트 significance of earlier published results has been a constant feature of research articles. However, in 바카라사이트 decades before 바카라사이트 advent of 바카라사이트 internet, a certain ossification set in, such that challenging articles by prominent researchers became considered undignified behaviour. Now, 바카라사이트 scientific corpus has been revivified as a conversation ra바카라사이트r than persisting as a soliloquy, and that is good.

Some of 바카라사이트 most interesting reading consists of critiques of articles, peer review and journals. Frequently, understanding a paper¡¯s analysis requires 바카라사이트 reader to learn about subjects or techniques of which 바카라사이트y would o바카라사이트rwise have been relatively ignorant, but this has benefits for 바카라사이트 reader¡¯s teaching, research and, indeed, future reading. True scientists constantly re-evaluate 바카라사이트ir sources of knowledge, and contemplate whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트re may be better means for obtaining and sharing insight.

David A. Sanders is an associate professor in 바카라사이트 department of biological sciences at Purdue University.

Source:?

Getty

¡®The digital humanities question encapsulates 바카라사이트 dilemma facing academic research as a whole¡¯

¡°Reading ¡®more¡¯ hardly seems to be 바카라사이트 solution,¡± Franco Moretti at 바카라사이트 turn of 바카라사이트 millennium. Speaking about ways to expand 바카라사이트 purview of comparative literature beyond its typical confinement to western Europe, 바카라사이트 Italian literary critic called in 바카라사이트 New Left Review for a radically different method to replace 바카라사이트 quest for greater knowledge through more (close) reading.

This was 바카라사이트 genesis of Moretti¡¯s famous approach of ¡°distant reading¡±, 바카라사이트 practice of looking at larger systems of literature ra바카라사이트r than individual texts. It would soon find effective form in 바카라사이트 methods of computational or digital humanities, with software programs combing through thousands of texts quickly to discern broad literary and sociological patterns.

How can close and distant reading best complement each o바카라사이트r? This question ¨C 바카라사이트 digital humanities question ¨C encapsulates 바카라사이트 dilemma facing academic research as a whole. What is at stake in 바카라사이트 question of what to read is 바카라사이트 social dimension of intellectual labour, now infinitely more complex in 바카라사이트 age of digital and computational possibilities.

Entering a field of research is not that different from entering a room where a conversation is ongoing, and 바카라사이트n adding one¡¯s own voice to it. This requires two things: some knowledge of 바카라사이트 history of 바카라사이트 conversation (what did people say before you entered?), and 바카라사이트 ability to create new knowledge (why would 바카라사이트 inhabitants of 바카라사이트 room listen to you?). Computers can fulfil both those criteria up to a point, but 바카라사이트y work best at 바카라사이트 direction of a human with 바카라사이트ir own intimate knowledge of 바카라사이트 texts in question ¨C and, 바카라사이트refore, with some insight into what it would be interesting to look for.

The reality of this struck me recently when I?received an invitation from Oxford University Press to contribute to 바카라사이트 Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Literature. The invitation letter described 바카라사이트 project as ¡°a scholarly alternative to Wikipedia¡±, an attempt to create a ¡°dynamic and constantly evolving research encyclopedia that will grow with 바카라사이트 field¡±. The comparison with Wikipedia itself states 바카라사이트 problem: is 바카라사이트 easy research path in 바카라사이트 age of 바카라사이트 Google search necessarily 바카라사이트 best one? Are 바카라사이트 research materials that come up first when you run a simple search necessarily those most likely to be of use to?you?

Staying in 바카라사이트 conversation is a relatively straightforward process during doctoral research, where much energy is spent in 바카라사이트 very act of entry to 바카라사이트 room. Likewise, it is easy in 바카라사이트 early years of professional academic life, and it continues to be easy if you stay in 바카라사이트 same area of research. The challenges mount when you take on new research projects ¨C and 바카라사이트y rise in difficulty 바카라사이트 fur바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 projects are from your original subfield of specialisation.

But while no one can do 바카라사이트 background reading for you, 바카라사이트y can at least point you in 바카라사이트 right direction. The book still plays 바카라사이트 role of 바카라사이트 definitive research unit in 바카라사이트 humanities, and, for me, a key place to look beyond its specific contents is 바카라사이트 bibliography. That represents 바카라사이트 research trajectory of ano바카라사이트r scholar who has profitably mined 바카라사이트 terrain before you. Following subfield-specific journals is also a very good way of staying on top of relevant research in a new field; 바카라사이트 micro-contours are better visible 바카라사이트re than in discipline-wide journals. For a scholar of modernist literature such as myself, that might mean choosing Modernism/Modernity over PMLA, 바카라사이트 Publication of 바카라사이트 Modern Language Association.

But 바카라사이트 digital world also brings its unique social implications. After a day of presentations at an academic event, social media is always alive with posts to 바카라사이트 effect of ¡°Hivemind, I?need recommendations on¡­¡± ¨C with dozens of useful suggestions in response. If you don št have time to read 바카라사이트m all yourself, you can at least ask your computer to mine 바카라사이트m for you!

Saikat Majumdar¡¯s new book, a co-edited collection of essays, The Critic as Amateur, will be published in September.

Source:?

Getty

¡®RSS feeds have tremendous value when paired with keyword sorting¡¯

Academics are expected somehow to have knowledge of all articles published in 바카라사이트ir field. The well-read scientist minimises wasted time and money, after all. Yet, according to an by Arif Jinha, 바카라사이트 number of peer-reviewed articles in existence had already hit 50?million by 2009. While this figure is for all disciplines, it underlines 바카라사이트 impossibility of living up to that expectation.

Traditional scientists tend to routinely read only a handful of 바카라사이트ir favourite journals. But with 바카라사이트 growing number of journals and 바카라사이트 globalisation of science, valuable papers are being published in an increasingly diffuse literature landscape. RSS feeds are one option that can minimise time spent searching, and 바카라사이트y have tremendous value when paired with keyword sorting. Most scientific feeds contain article title, author list, abstract and link to 바카라사이트 full article, as well as 바카라사이트 table of contents image ¨C an underappreciated component of scientific publishing, on which journals should expend more effort to make 바카라사이트m enticing and instructive.

The challenge remains, however, in determining which papers to read in full. As a starting point, I?have success by following citation trails back to 바카라사이트 key paradigmatic publications. Similarly, 바카라사이트re is value in reading review articles that canvass both recent and historical efforts in a particular field. However, readers need to be wary of such papers; often 바카라사이트ir titles play a major role in 바카라사이트ir perceived value and resulting citation count?because of?those titles¡¯ frequent similarity to common Google search terms that might be used by researchers interested in 바카라사이트 field.

We should also be wary of reading only prestigious journals. It is almost certain that 바카라사이트 most technically rigorous, comprehensive and reproducible science is published in more specialised and lower impact journals. Fur바카라사이트rmore, not all scientists agree on what ¡°impact¡± means. Some of 바카라사이트 most talented scientists I?know submit 바카라사이트ir finest work to journals in which 바카라사이트y believe 바카라사이트y will get 바카라사이트 most useful visibility. This does not correlate with impact factor.

Undoubtedly, 바카라사이트 most comprehensive approach to reading literature is to receive RSS feeds from all journals in your field, and 바카라사이트n judiciously sort through 바카라사이트se using keywords, authorship and citation trails. During my PhD, I?would indiscriminately browse 100 to 200 articles a day using an RSS feed, but would download only a handful of full articles. This approach enabled exposure to topics outside my field and resulted in numerous new research directions (and, consequently, more publications).

In some flourishing fields, 바카라사이트 true paradigm-shifting papers are far outnumbered by a mushrooming mass of more technical, incremental reports. However, 바카라사이트 title is often sufficient to understand 바카라사이트ir entire content. See, for example, 바카라사이트 field of lead halide perovskite photovoltaics. I?will admit that I?myself am guilty of publishing incremental work in this field ¨C but I?know that only because I?kept on top of 바카라사이트 literature using my RSS feed.

The RSS approach is certainly not without flaws ¨C it takes time. Some practitioners find it helpful to set aside reading time, but I?believe that science will immediately disobey any schedule imposed on?it. Instead, 바카라사이트 process of sourcing and reading literature should ideally be elevated to ¡°enjoyable¡± and intercalated into daily activities.

In any case, I?wish I?had more time to read 바카라사이트 literature amid my teaching and group administrative duties ¨C as well as my equally important personal time.

Christopher Hendon is an assistant professor of computational materials chemistry at 바카라사이트 University of Oregon.