blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject

Specifically, we look at how the Israeli Defence Forces (@IDFSpokesperson) and a Palestinian NGO, International Solidarity Movement (@ISMPalestine) tweeted about events. Table 1, created from the Palestinian NGO (@ISMPalestine) corpus of Tweets using Tweetvis, shows terms occurring in close proximity. #Israeli forces increase harassment of Palestinian schoolchildren” or “Israeli Forces firing dozens of stun grenades at bab al-zawwiva in #Hebron. This is not to say that a broader political context is not contained within the tweets, but when referring to the Palestinians they place their actions within the context of a threat to the state.

And yes, we are mostly men. Sorry about that

Ralph M. Barnes, Heather M. Johnston, Noah MacKenzie, Stephanie J. Tobin and Chelsea M. Taglang have investigated the degree to which such attacks do undermine trust in that scientist’s research, and the relative impact of various types of ad hominem attacks. Perhaps surprisingly, purely ad hominem attacks, such as accusations of a financial conflict of interest, for example, prove just as effective in undermining public faith in research findings as direct criticism of the empirical foundations of a science claim. While anxiety is often perceived as an individual problem for which employees are encouraged to take personal responsibility, Vik Loveday argues that anxiety amongst academic staff should be understood in two ways: as a symptom of casualised work in an increasingly competitive environment; and as a tactic of governance, ensuring compliance. However, Hans Agné and Ulf Mörkenstam have compared the experiences of individually and collectively supervised students on the same doctoral programme and found that collective supervision, during the first year at least, is correlated with significantly shorter times to thesis completion compared to individual supervision.

These range from the simple acts of scheduling and setting self-imposed deadlines, to both formal and informal accountability partnerships and the use of “freewriting” techniques which help authors write their way out of blocks. Daniel Beaudoin shares five simple steps to keep the “me” in check; including firstly by recognising that your research may be driven by emotional and personal motives, using your theoretical construct to pave the way to a more impartial writing roadmap, and by submitting drafts of your writing to your supervisor and peers on a regular basis. Getting the most out of your Google Scholar profile, creating some old-fashioned table of contents alerts, and simply setting aside time to periodically review key journal titles will ensure you rarely miss out on important research. Margaret K. Merga, Shannon Mason and Julia E. Morris share insights from their own experiences of navigating the journal submission and publication process as ECRs, emphasising the importance of being strategic about journal selection, understanding which suggested revisions will actually improve a paper, and knowing what is the right moment to contact the editor for guidance.