Currently there were lots of Translation tools, and some are equipped with grammar checking. This tools became powerful cause it will help the user using the correct grammar. With this tools student in overseas or newbie english learner could maximize their potential in learning english.

If you want to improve your english skill, the first thing to start is fixing your grammar.
Here are some basic rules that need to be noticed in Grammar:
a. Capital letters only in use for nouns and the beginning of sentences. It could be a noun name of the person and place names.
b. Every sentence must end with a dot (.), An exclamation point (!) Or question mark (?) And provides a space before starting the next sentence.
c. A noun is a word that the good name of the person’s name or the name of the place. While the verb form of an activity or action to do something. In making a sentence, there must be at least one noun and a verb.
d. Only need to use a single punctuation, do not need too much, here is an example of making the wrong punctuation:

- It was great !!!!!
- How are you?.
- She said “I left it on the bench.”

e. Apostrophe proper use of symbols is as follows:

- To write ‘the boy Owned the book’, we can use the Apostrophe ‘the boy’s book’ sign Apostrophe in place after the owner and before the “s”. For exception words that have the suffix s is added only Apostrophe just behind those words.

example:

boy’s toy
(Boys who have a toy / owner of the toy)
boys’ bikes
(Some boys bicycle owners)

- In use for certain abbreviations
example:

I am>> I’m
He is>> He’s
We will of>> We’ll
You are>> you’re
They ate>> they’re

These Grammar basics is referring to facilitate you in forming a proper sentence.
Find the best tools to help you out in your english learning.

When evaluating the impact of scientific research, a common method used is counting the number of publications generated – for instance, in scientific magazines and conference proceedings – and the number of citations that other authors make to those publications.
However, in some disciplines the number of publications and citations by others is neither a fair nor an adequate metrics. In civil engineering the final product of an innovative research might not be an article but a building, for example.
Evaluation standards should then be wider, and take other indicators into account. One way to evaluate research projects and groups is looking at what they can bring into society in terms of knowledge and innovation: in other words, their social usefulness. But how can the social value of research be estimated? more
The ERiC Project
To meet this need of taking social relevance into account, the ERiC (Evaluating Research in Context) project was initiated. As stated in the ERiC website (eric-project.nl), the new evaluation protocol “no longer just assesses the scientific quality of research but also uses indicators to measure its social impact.” This is what has been recently presented.
In short, the aim of the ERiC project is to provide a broader description of research. The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), Netherlands Association of Universities of Applied Sciences (HBO-Raad), and Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities (QANU) have taken part in the project, and Hogeschool Utrecht, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW) and Rathenau Institute have been involved as observers.
Disciplines such as social sciences and humanities, health research, design-oriented research, and construction technologies are to profit from their developed evaluation approach. In the ERiC platform a number of different measuring methods can be considered. One of them is the so-called sci_Quest method.
The sci_Quest Method
In the sci_Quest method a number of social and scientific domains are considered:
• Science
• Education and training
• Innovation and professionals
• Management and policy
• Team-work and visibility
For each research group a number of those domains are chosen, according to the knowledge production and the activities undertaken by the group. The evaluation is then taken in four steps:
1. The research group’s image is evaluated, i.e., its members determine to which extent the group focuses on the various domains of interest, and what the group’s mission is
2. The research group’s profile is determined trough the assessment of research (its output and activities) and the embedding of the research group in its field
3. An overview of the quality of the research is obtained, i.e., “the perspective of those it serves” is examined, and observations over the social relevance of research summarised
4. Reflection, where the quantitative component (step2) and the qualitative component (step 3) are compared, and this is then matched to the research group’s mission (step 1).
How About Fundamental Research?
In principle, the ERiC approach should not negatively influence the evaluation of fundamental, purely theoretical research. It is primarily to take into account other aspects – such as social use or significance – inherent to certain streams of research. However, scientists involved in the topics which do not have a direct social application fear the path where the new protocols and metrics might lead.
The risk is to end up having that only research with an immediate social appeal will be considered as relevant. This would certainly restrict the range of developed knowledge. On the one hand, topics that attract media attention and have an explicit public interest are to be funded and encouraged. On the other hand, less opportunities and subsidies are to created for fundamental research.
Science has to be useful and we should be able to evaluate how useful it actually is. This seems to be the message. However, it has not always been like this. One example is Einstein’s special relativity, the theory of the structure of space-time. Its relevance is unquestionable, but at the time when it was postulated its applicability in precise measurement, such as Global Positioning System (GPS) so commonly used in modern auto navigation devices, or medical accelerators used in the treatment of cancers, could not have been foreseen.
It appears that it is not always possible to determine beforehand how useful certain theories will be. But this should not be a problem. In the end, knowledge in itself is already of great value. Or is it not?