Quote:
Originally Posted by murg
Just what part of 'this is the internet' don't you quite understand...
|
Well, in his defense, the paper isn't factually wrong.
Just meaningless.
It doesn't say anything that wasn't known beforehand, especially by the researchers and reviewers, nor does it help anybody since it warns people not to do something no rational adult would do. (I suppose an over-eager 6 year old might read his digital storybook at full blast under the covers. But I doubt it. Tablets at full blast in the dark can be nasty.)
At any time, there are literally hundreds of university research proposals just like it at Government agencies, foundations, and corporate R&D offices, trying to squeeze some grant money off a pet concept or established fact by wrapping it in trendy buzzwords or tying it to a current hot subject no matter how much of a reach it might be. Standard practice when evaluating research proposals (been there, tried to escape, still done it) is to have veterans of the process to spot repeaters; the same folks submit the same proposals year after year in different wrapping.
University researchers are a lot like the old pulp writers: they follow the money. And adapt. The pulp writers adapted their plots and characters to whatever venue was buying. If Westerns weren't buying but Police stories were, the taciturn old west Sheriff dealing with outlaws became a Precinct cop dealing with a gang.
It's all about bringing in the grant money.
And if wrapping an old bit of research in made-up terms like LE ereader and tying it to the oh-so-trendy ebook brings in the moolah, so much the better. And if a bit of tailoring can align it to please the patrons, no problem. It might help secure the next grant.
As I said, junk is junk.
Not worth taking seriously.