Workplace learning and the employment relationship in the public sector.

Training that is relevant to employers is not necessarily enriching for employees, especially those on the lower salary scales. The authors argue that the analysis of training and development needs to be understood in the context of the employment relationship. Drawing on reasearch evidence from six case studies in the public sector, the article examines the impact of changes in work organisation on workplace learning, managers' and employees' own strategies towards it and the limitations of tools such as appraisal. Since employees' existing qualifications are poorly utilised and their development needs often frustrated, issues concerning job design, occupational progression routes and employee entitlements need to be addressed

Public feedback - but personal feedforward?

Academic feedback is taken here as the reporting to student writers of the strengths and weaknesses of their submitted draft work, while academic feedforward refers to constructive advice regarding possible strengthening of students’ next work. Both originate from a tutor’s initial judgement of a student’s work. Feedback and feedforward on work showing need for improvement are problematic in a Confucian Heritage Culture. Even gently constructive advice within a programme seeking evidence for assessment of critical thinking may lead to perception of hurtful criticism by Taiwanese students. Some could withdraw from class activity accordingly. So the writers adjusted their response style. They now choose between different approaches featuring tutorial feedback or feedforward, depending on the standard of work being judged. When individual postings feature poor critical thinking, the writers opt for private messages concentrating on constructive feedforward. For better postings, they provide positive feedback with reasons for their judgements, and summarise to the class these exemplars of generic strengths in critical thinking. They also offer private prompting when they see scope for further enrichment of an able student’s critical thinking. This might also be a useful practice when tutoring solely in the West. (192 words) Keywords: Confucian Heritage Culture, public feedback, private feedforward, assessment

Reader development and ICT: an overview of projects in Welsh public libraries

Bird, A.,& Tedd, L. (2004). Reader development and ICT: an overview of projects in Welsh public libraries. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 36(4), 159-174.

Evaluation of resources to support production of high quality health information for patients and the public. Final report for NHS Research Outputs Programme

Durbin, J., Urquhart, C. & Yeoman, A. (2003). Evaluation of resources to support production of high quality health information for patients and the public. Final report for NHS Research Outputs Programme. Aberystwyth: Department of Information Studies, University of Wales Aberystwyth. Sponsorship: Department of Health

Bacteremic pneumonia before and after withdrawal of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine from a public vaccination program in Spain: a case-control study

The objective of this study is to compare the incidence and epidemiology of bacteremic community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in the setting of changes in 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) coverage. In the region of Madrid, universal immunization with the PCV13 started in May 2010. In July 2012, public funding ceased. Vaccination coverage decreased from >95% to 82% in 2013 and to 67% in 2014. We performed a multicenter surveillance and case-control study from 2009-2014. Cases were hospitalized children with bacteremic CAP. Controls were children selected 1:1 from next-admitted with negative blood cultures and typical, presumed bacterial CAP. Annual incidence of bacteremic CAP declined from 7.9/100 000 children (95% CI 5.1-11.1) in 2009 to 2.1/100 000 children (95% CI 1.1-4.1) in 2012. In 2014, 2 years after PCV13 was withdrawn from the universal vaccination program, the incidence of bacteremic CAP increased to 5.4/100 000 children (95% CI 3.5-8.4). We enrolled 113 cases and 113 controls. Streptococcus pneumoniae caused most of bloodstream infections (78%). Empyema was associated with bacteremia (P = .003, OR 3.6; 95% CI 1.4-8.9). Simple parapneumonic effusion was not associated with bacteremia. Incomplete PCV immunization was not a risk factor for bacteremic pneumonia.

Local studies collections online: an investigation in Irish public libraries

Barry, L., Tedd, L.A. (2008). Local studies collections online: an investigation in Irish public libraries. Program: electronic library and information systems, 42(2), 163-186.

Political Leadership and Public Support In Belarus: Forward to the Past?

Korosteleva-Polglase Elena, White, S., 'Political Leadership and Public Support In Belarus: Forward to the Past?', In: 'The EU and Belarus: Between Moscow and Brussels', (London: Kogan Page), pp.51-71, 2001 RAE2008

Public service employment and the public-private wage differential in British regions

Thomas, Dennis, Henley, Andrew, 'Public service employment and the public-private wage differential in British regions', Regional Studies (2001) 35(3) pp.229-240 RAE2008

The decline of public service broadcasting in the UK 1979-2000

O'Malley, T. (2001). The decline of public service broadcasting in the UK 1979-2000. In M. Bromley (Ed.), No News is Bad News: Radio, Television and the Public (pp.28-45). Harlow: Longman. RAE2008

Culture, ?race' and the Missionary Public in Mid-Victorian Wales

Jones, Aled, 'Culture, ?race' and the Missionary Public in Mid-Victorian Wales', Journal of Victorian Culture (2005) 10(2) pp.157-183 RAE2008

Which of the three action-oriented corporate social responsibility (CSR) types is the most effective in improving the public attitude toward tobacco companies?

Dissertação apresentada à Universidade Fernando Pessoa como parte dos requisitos para a obtenção do grau de Mestre em Ciências da Comunicação, ramo de Marketing e Publicidade

The Information Commons: a public policy report

This report describes the history of the information commons, presents examples of online commons that provide new ways to store and deliver information, and concludes with policy recommendations. Available in PDF and HTML versions.

The life of Rev. David Brainerd, chiefly extracted from his diary. By President Edwards. Somewhat abridged. Embracing, in the chronological order, Brainerd's public journal of the most successful year of his missionary labors.

http://www.archive.org/details/lifeofrevdavidbr00braiiala

An account of the life of Mr. David Brainerd : missionary from the Society for Propagating Christian Knowledge, & pastor of a church of Christian Indians in New-Jersey / published by Jonathan Edwards ; with Mr. Brainerd's public journal ; to this edition is added, Mr. Beatty's mission to the westward of the Allegheny Mountains.

http://www.archive.org/details/accountoflifeofm00brairich

Complying with the NIH Public Access Policy - Copyright Considerations and Options

On January 11, 2008, the National Institutes of Health ('NIH') adopted a revised Public Access Policy for peer-reviewed journal articles reporting research supported in whole or in part by NIH funds. Under the revised policy, the grantee shall ensure that a copy of the author's final manuscript, including any revisions made during the peer review process, be electronically submitted to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central ('PMC') archive and that the person submitting the manuscript will designate a time not later than 12 months after publication at which NIH may make the full text of the manuscript publicly accessible in PMC. NIH adopted this policy to implement a new statutory requirement under which: The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law. This White Paper is written primarily for policymaking staff in universities and other institutional recipients of NIH support responsible for ensuring compliance with the Public Access Policy. The January 11, 2008, Public Access Policy imposes two new compliance mandates. First, the grantee must ensure proper manuscript submission. The version of the article to be submitted is the final version over which the author has control, which must include all revisions made after peer review. The statutory command directs that the manuscript be submitted to PMC 'upon acceptance for publication.' That is, the author's final manuscript should be submitted to PMC at the same time that it is sent to the publisher for final formatting and copy editing. Proper submission is a two-stage process. The electronic manuscript must first be submitted through a process that requires input of additional information concerning the article, the author(s), and the nature of NIH support for the research reported. NIH then formats the manuscript into a uniform, XML-based format used for PMC versions of articles. In the second stage of the submission process, NIH sends a notice to the Principal Investigator requesting that the PMC-formatted version be reviewed and approved. Only after such approval has grantee's manuscript submission obligation been satisfied. Second, the grantee also has a distinct obligation to grant NIH copyright permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible through PMC not later than 12 months after the date of publication. This obligation is connected to manuscript submission because the author, or the person submitting the manuscript on the author's behalf, must have the necessary rights under copyright at the time of submission to give NIH the copyright permission it requires. This White Paper explains and analyzes only the scope of the grantee's copyright-related obligations under the revised Public Access Policy and suggests six options for compliance with that aspect of the grantee's obligation. Time is of the essence for NIH grantees. As a practical matter, the grantee should have a compliance process in place no later than April 7, 2008. More specifically, the new Public Access Policy applies to any article accepted for publication on or after April 7, 2008 if the article arose under (1) an NIH Grant or Cooperative Agreement active in Fiscal Year 2008, (2) direct funding from an NIH Contract signed after April 7, 2008, (3) direct funding from the NIH Intramural Program, or (4) from an NIH employee. In addition, effective May 25, 2008, anyone submitting an application, proposal or progress report to the NIH must include the PMC reference number when citing articles arising from their NIH funded research. (This includes applications submitted to the NIH for the May 25, 2008 and subsequent due dates.) Conceptually, the compliance challenge that the Public Access Policy poses for grantees is easily described. The grantee must depend to some extent upon the author(s) to take the necessary actions to ensure that the grantee is in compliance with the Public Access Policy because the electronic manuscripts and the copyrights in those manuscripts are initially under the control of the author(s). As a result, any compliance option will require an explicit understanding between the author(s) and the grantee about how the manuscript and the copyright in the manuscript are managed. It is useful to conceptually keep separate the grantee's manuscript submission obligation from its copyright permission obligation because the compliance personnel concerned with manuscript management may differ from those responsible for overseeing the author's copyright management. With respect to copyright management, the grantee has the following six options: (1) rely on authors to manage copyright but also to request or to require that these authors take responsibility for amending publication agreements that call for transfer of too many rights to enable the author to grant NIH permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible ('the Public Access License'); (2) take a more active role in assisting authors in negotiating the scope of any copyright transfer to a publisher by (a) providing advice to authors concerning their negotiations or (b) by acting as the author's agent in such negotiations; (3) enter into a side agreement with NIH-funded authors that grants a non-exclusive copyright license to the grantee sufficient to grant NIH the Public Access License; (4) enter into a side agreement with NIH-funded authors that grants a non-exclusive copyright license to the grantee sufficient to grant NIH the Public Access License and also grants a license to the grantee to make certain uses of the article, including posting a copy in the grantee's publicly accessible digital archive or repository and authorizing the article to be used in connection with teaching by university faculty; (5) negotiate a more systematic and comprehensive agreement with the biomedical publishers to ensure either that the publisher has a binding obligation to submit the manuscript and to grant NIH permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible or that the author retains sufficient rights to do so; or (6) instruct NIH-funded authors to submit manuscripts only to journals with binding deposit agreements with NIH or to journals whose copyright agreements permit authors to retain sufficient rights to authorize NIH to make manuscripts publicly accessible.