I recently bought and read Naomi S. Baron's Words Onscreen. The Fate of Reading in a Digital World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). I came away somewhat disappointed, perhaps because I expected far too much from it. It does not really seem to provide an account of the fate of reading. Her main conclusions seem to be two: "To the extent we shift our reading from print to screens, we become less likely to reread. A decline of rereading would mark a critical shift in the way at least some types of readers have encountered books for centuries" (xiv), and "Reading onscreen favors short-form reading" (106). She also claims that e-books cannot be owned, but can only be licensed.
Let's take the last claim first. It is, of course true, if you look at books still covered by copyright, but it is clearly false when you look at older text, like those available on Project Gutenberg which is mention on three pages (ix, 36, 200) but does not really discuss. So the claim is at best only partially true. The same holds of the other two claims. E-texts do seem to make re-reading "less likely" and it does seem to favor short texts. But her main reference group for this claim is college or university students, and I am not sure they are the best sample to use. She also concentrates on textbooks which are not really designed for re-reading even in their printed form. Students buy them at the beginning of the semester and sell them at the end of the semester. Some students mark the texts up for reviewing the information, while others avoid it (to get a better price at the end, I think). So, it's partially true that e-books make re-reading less likely, but I am not sure by how much they are to blame.
There is no entry in the index for "notes" or "note-taking," and the text is very light on this topic as well. In so far as she talks about note-taking, it has to do mainly with annotation (27-29, 30, 82, 116, 150-51, and digital annotation, 30). Marginalia are, as far as I am concerned the least important part of note-taking, however. The relative lack of engaging this issue is probably the main cause of my disappointment.
There are other interesting (but questionable) claims in the book, but not enough for me to whole-heartedly recommend it.
1. I don't know what "short-form reading" is.