Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 44 views

    How To (Seriously) Read A Scientific Paper

    Uploaded by

    gogor
    The document provides advice from scientists on how they approach reading scientific papers. It discusses starting with the abstract and conclusions to get the main points. Looking at figures first to get an impression of the paper's findings is also recommended. For a deeper reading, going through the paper in order from introduction to discussion is suggested to follow the authors' intended flow. Paying close attention to methodology, limitations, and how the paper fits with other literature in the field is important. The level of reading depends on the paper's relevance to one's own research questions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    How To (Seriously) Read A Scientific Paper

    Uploaded by

    gogor
    44 views2 pages
    The document provides advice from scientists on how they approach reading scientific papers. It discusses starting with the abstract and conclusions to get the main points. Looking at figures first to get an impression of the paper's findings is also recommended. For a deeper reading, going through the paper in order from introduction to discussion is suggested to follow the authors' intended flow. Paying close attention to methodology, limitations, and how the paper fits with other literature in the field is important. The level of reading depends on the paper's relevance to one's own research questions.

    Original Title

    How to (seriously) read a scientific paper

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document provides advice from scientists on how they approach reading scientific papers. It discusses starting with the abstract and conclusions to get the main points. Looking at figures first to get an impression of the paper's findings is also recommended. For a deeper reading, going through the paper in order from introduction to discussion is suggested to follow the authors' intended flow. Paying close attention to methodology, limitations, and how the paper fits with other literature in the field is important. The level of reading depends on the paper's relevance to one's own research questions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as txt, pdf, or txt
    44 views2 pages

    How To (Seriously) Read A Scientific Paper

    Uploaded by

    gogor
    The document provides advice from scientists on how they approach reading scientific papers. It discusses starting with the abstract and conclusions to get the main points. Looking at figures first to get an impression of the paper's findings is also recommended. For a deeper reading, going through the paper in order from introduction to discussion is suggested to follow the authors' intended flow. Paying close attention to methodology, limitations, and how the paper fits with other literature in the field is important. The level of reading depends on the paper's relevance to one's own research questions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as txt, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    How to (seriously) read a scientific paper

    By Elisabeth PainMar. 21, 2016 , 1:15 PM

    Adam Ruben’s tongue-in-cheek column about the common difficulties and frustrations
    of reading a scientific paper broadly resonated among Science Careers readers. Many
    of you have come to us asking for more (and more serious) advice on how to make
    sense of the scientific literature, so we’ve asked a dozen scientists at different
    career stages and in a broad range of fields to tell us how they do it. Although it
    is clear that reading scientific papers becomes easier with experience, the
    stumbling blocks are real, and it is up to each scientist to identify and apply the
    techniques that work best for them. The responses have been edited for clarity and
    brevity.

    How do you approach reading a paper?


    I start by reading the abstract. Then, I skim the introduction and flip through the
    article to look at the figures. I try to identify the most prominent one or two
    figures, and I really make sure I understand what's going on in them. Then, I read
    the conclusion/summary. Only when I have done that will I go back into the
    technical details to clarify any questions I might have.
    - Jesse Shanahan, master's candidate in astronomy at Wesleyan University in
    Middletown, Connecticut

    I first get a general idea by reading the abstract and conclusions. The conclusions
    help me understand if the goal summarized in the abstract has been reached, and if
    the described work can be of interest for my own study. I also always look at
    plots/figures, as they help me get a first impression of a paper. Then I usually
    read the entire article from beginning to end, going through the sections in the
    order they appear so that I can follow the flow of work that the authors want to
    communicate.

    If you want to make it a productive exercise, you need to have a clear idea of
    which kind of information you need to get in the first place, and then focus on
    that aspect. It could be to compare your results with the ones presented by the
    authors, put your own analysis into context, or extend it using the newly published
    data. Citation lists can help you decide why the paper may be most relevant to you
    by giving you a first impression of how colleagues that do similar research as you
    do may have used the paper.
    - Cecilia Tubiana, scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research
    in Göttingen, Germany

    If I’m aiming to just get the main points, I’ll read the abstract, hop to the
    figures, and scan the discussion for important points. I think the figures are the
    most important part of the paper, because the abstract and body of the paper can be
    manipulated and shaped to tell a compelling story. Then anything I’m unclear about,
    I head to the methodology.

    More from our How-To series


    old library
    How to keep up with the scientific literature
    someone correcting a paper
    How to review a paper
    poster session at a conference
    How to get the most out of attending conferences
    Read the full list of How-Tos
    If I want to delve deeper into the paper, I typically read it in its entirety and
    then also read a few of the previous papers from that group or other articles on
    the same topic. If there is a reference after a statement that I find particularly
    interesting or controversial, I also look it up. Should I need more detail, I
    access any provided data repositories or supplemental information.
    Then, if the authors' research is similar to my own, I see if their relevant data
    match our findings or if there are any inconsistencies. If there are, I think about
    what could be causing them. Additionally, I think about what would happen in our
    model if we used the same methods as they did and what we could learn from that.
    Sometimes, it is also important to pay attention to why the authors decided to
    conduct an experiment in a certain way. Did the authors use an obscure test instead
    of a routine assay, and why would they do this?
    - Jeremy C. Borniger, doctoral candidate in neuroscience at Ohio State University,
    Columbus

    I always start with title and abstract. That tells me whether or not it’s an
    article I’m interested in and whether I’ll actually be able to understand it—both
    scientifically and linguistically. I then read the introduction so that I can
    understand the question being framed, and jump right to the figures and tables so I
    can get a feel for the data. I then read the discussion to get an idea of how the
    paper fits into the general body of knowledge.

    I pay attention to acknowledgement of limitations and proper inference of data.


    Some people stretch their claims more than others, and that can be a red flag for
    me. I also put on my epidemiologist hat so that I can try to make sure the study
    design is adequate to actually test the hypotheses being examined.

    As I go deeper into the argument framing, figures, and discussion, I also think
    about which pieces are exciting and new, which ones are biologically or logically
    relevant, and which ones are most supported by the literature. I also consider
    which pieces fit with my pre-existing hypotheses and research questions.
    - Kevin Boehnke, doctoral candidate in environmental health sciences at the
    University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

    My reading strategy depends on the paper. Sometimes I start by skimming through to


    see how much might be relevant. If it is directly applicable to my current topic,
    I’ll read the paper closely, apart from the introduction that is probably already
    familiar. But I always try to figure out if there are particular places or figures
    that I need to pay close attention to, and then I go and read the related
    information in the results and discussion.

    You might also like