5 ms·

By the time I was in year 4 of my PhD, reading a paper mostly involved: look at title, directly look at figure 1 and figure 8 to judge if the title actually mat

By the time I was in year 4 of my PhD, reading a paper mostly involved: look at title, directly look at figure 1 and figure 8 to judge if the title actually matches the result. If the result is of genuine interest then read the abstract, and then go through the figures carefully. Otherwise for the most part the reminder of the paper is left alone. This only applies for papers where I already know the field and am only trying to gauge the incremental addition to the knowledge the paper makes. The style will be different for a paper in an unknown field, there it's best to just read it as prose from top to bottom with a marker at hand. To add more - not reading any text in the paper makes you laser focussed on trying to figure out what the data means without the authors trying to sugar coat anything with their perspective/agenda.

twic 6y ago
Agreed. Although the order i learned was title, figures, materials and methods. Sometimes there's useful stuff in the materials and methods, and sometimes that's where the bodies are buried.
- ramraj07 6y ago
  At least in bio papers, the good ones make sure to give the most important method details in the legend itself so it's rare I have to refer the methods section. But yes, that does happen! Especially anything where they cure cancer in mice (the running joke is that you can also cure cancer in mice by stomping them)
GirkovArpa 6y ago
As a layman my impression is most papers are too verbose. At least the ones that I can understand. After reading tons of steganography papers (for example) I found they tend to begin with the same retelling of the history of steganography from the beginning of time up to now, even though it's completely irrelevant to the topic of the paper (which is not history).
- kortilla 6y ago
  That section is helpful for researchers both to contextualize the paper and to leave pointers to other papers the current one builds on. You’re right it’s not directly about the method in the current paper but it’s an important section nonetheless, even if it’s a bit meta.
- serial_dev 6y ago
  While that is true, it also helps people new to a scientific area. I can read 3-5 papers on a topic and the first chapters of each will give me enough to understand the gist of the topic, the status quo. It's a question of who you prioritize while writing a paper. Experts or the interested layman. If you prioritize people who are already experts in the topic, you write little to no introduction, you get to the results quickly. If you prioritize the "curious, interested layman" (or university students in their first years), a short introduction to a topic with references will provide enough information to understand the basics and the reader can continue reading the rest of the paper with enough context to understand why the topic is relevant.
  - dalke 6y ago
    The way I write a paper for "curious, interested layman" is different than the way I write for experts. It's hard to keep both in mind when writing. Laymen, for example, might need some figures to help understand a topic that experts internalized years ago. I prefer having occasional well-written review papers, meant for getting non-experts up to speed. Then the domain experts - who are often not experts at writing for laymen - can refer people to those review papers, possibly also with a history delta for what's new since the review. "For a comprehensive review, see" https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22for+a+comprehensive+review+see%22 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22for+a+comprehensive+...
    - bumby 6y ago
      There's an added difficulty of writing to "tangential experts". I've had papers in the past that were 'tweeners, between two related but different fields. Depending on the audience, background information was needed that may be tedious for the other group.
andi999 6y ago
It is good you labeled the stage you were (4th year PhD), the article misses this. I would say in the 1st year of my PhD the path was more like this: read the paper slowly top to bottom, understand nothing, now look for the part which looks the most interesting/approachable, read that again. Go to the citations of this section and repeat the process (recursive algorithm). Take note of any papers beiing cited by most of the papers, invest time in this paper. Look for papers citing the paper you read (not possible for cutting edge of course). This process takes probably 2-3 month. Then do own research on that topic, then go back to the paper and now things are clearer. Do the same process with a related paper in the field. Then one more. Probable now you are in year two and one can transition to your approach.
- dalke 6y ago
  Did you read the link to "Adam Ruben’s tongue-in-cheek column"? It had me laughing, and is much more like the process you described.
  - andi999 6y ago
    Now I read it. Actually I think it is not 'tongue-in-cheek' (apart from making light of a hard thing).
    - dalke 6y ago
      Looking now at various definitions of 'tongue-in-cheek', I think you're right.
    - wadkar 6y ago
      Can you please share the link? I reached his homepage but no dice: http://adamruben.net/ http://adamruben.net/
      - dalke 6y ago
        It's the first hyperlink in the text of the linked-to article, going to http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2016/01/how-read-scientific-paper http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2016/01/how-read-scientifi... .
dekhn 6y ago
I've had many people suggest just reading the figures, but I've found that most scientists hide their sins in the methods section, and the figures cannot be properly interpreted without careful inspection of the methods (which often demonstrates the authors didn't really do a good job). Also, I've noticed that a very large range of papers with faked image data in figures has gone unnoticed by most readers. People look at the figures hoping to see what they want to see and aren't critical enough about the process used to generate them (when I wrote my phd thesis, all figures were programmatically generated by version-controlled code on well-managed data.
- grawprog 6y ago
  I agree with this. The results and discussion are usually the least interesting parts and figures are usually meaningless without seeing how the data used to generate those figures were collected. The methodology tells you exactly what the people who wrote the paper did. It's where you can see whether they used a sample size of 10 vs 1000, what methods they used to sample their data, the accuracy levels they used in analyzing their data, it's also how a study may be replicated. Without reading the methods, you can't be sure about any other thing in the paper. That's the problem i see with a lot of news reporting on science papers. They use the gp's method of reading. Abstract, images and maybe results if they're really trying. That's how you end up with a lot of sensationalist, contradictory science headlines.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
kenjackson 6y ago
You forgot to mention reading the Related Works section to make sure you're referenced.

twic 6y ago

Agreed. Although the order i learned was title, figures, materials and methods. Sometimes there's useful stuff in the materials and methods, and sometimes that's where the bodies are buried.

ramraj07 6y ago
At least in bio papers, the good ones make sure to give the most important method details in the legend itself so it's rare I have to refer the methods section. But yes, that does happen! Especially anything where they cure cancer in mice (the running joke is that you can also cure cancer in mice by stomping them)

GirkovArpa 6y ago

As a layman my impression is most papers are too verbose. At least the ones that I can understand. After reading tons of steganography papers (for example) I found they tend to begin with the same retelling of the history of steganography from the beginning of time up to now, even though it's completely irrelevant to the topic of the paper (which is not history).

kortilla 6y ago
That section is helpful for researchers both to contextualize the paper and to leave pointers to other papers the current one builds on. You’re right it’s not directly about the method in the current paper but it’s an important section nonetheless, even if it’s a bit meta.
serial_dev 6y ago
While that is true, it also helps people new to a scientific area. I can read 3-5 papers on a topic and the first chapters of each will give me enough to understand the gist of the topic, the status quo. It's a question of who you prioritize while writing a paper. Experts or the interested layman. If you prioritize people who are already experts in the topic, you write little to no introduction, you get to the results quickly. If you prioritize the "curious, interested layman" (or university students in their first years), a short introduction to a topic with references will provide enough information to understand the basics and the reader can continue reading the rest of the paper with enough context to understand why the topic is relevant.
- dalke 6y ago
  The way I write a paper for "curious, interested layman" is different than the way I write for experts. It's hard to keep both in mind when writing. Laymen, for example, might need some figures to help understand a topic that experts internalized years ago. I prefer having occasional well-written review papers, meant for getting non-experts up to speed. Then the domain experts - who are often not experts at writing for laymen - can refer people to those review papers, possibly also with a history delta for what's new since the review. "For a comprehensive review, see" https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22for+a+comprehensive+review+see%22 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22for+a+comprehensive+...
  - bumby 6y ago
    There's an added difficulty of writing to "tangential experts". I've had papers in the past that were 'tweeners, between two related but different fields. Depending on the audience, background information was needed that may be tedious for the other group.

andi999 6y ago

It is good you labeled the stage you were (4th year PhD), the article misses this. I would say in the 1st year of my PhD the path was more like this: read the paper slowly top to bottom, understand nothing, now look for the part which looks the most interesting/approachable, read that again. Go to the citations of this section and repeat the process (recursive algorithm). Take note of any papers beiing cited by most of the papers, invest time in this paper. Look for papers citing the paper you read (not possible for cutting edge of course). This process takes probably 2-3 month. Then do own research on that topic, then go back to the paper and now things are clearer. Do the same process with a related paper in the field. Then one more. Probable now you are in year two and one can transition to your approach.

dalke 6y ago
Did you read the link to "Adam Ruben’s tongue-in-cheek column"? It had me laughing, and is much more like the process you described.
- andi999 6y ago
  Now I read it. Actually I think it is not 'tongue-in-cheek' (apart from making light of a hard thing).
  - dalke 6y ago
    Looking now at various definitions of 'tongue-in-cheek', I think you're right.
  - wadkar 6y ago
    Can you please share the link? I reached his homepage but no dice: http://adamruben.net/ http://adamruben.net/
    - dalke 6y ago
      It's the first hyperlink in the text of the linked-to article, going to http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2016/01/how-read-scientific-paper http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2016/01/how-read-scientifi... .

dekhn 6y ago

I've had many people suggest just reading the figures, but I've found that most scientists hide their sins in the methods section, and the figures cannot be properly interpreted without careful inspection of the methods (which often demonstrates the authors didn't really do a good job). Also, I've noticed that a very large range of papers with faked image data in figures has gone unnoticed by most readers. People look at the figures hoping to see what they want to see and aren't critical enough about the process used to generate them (when I wrote my phd thesis, all figures were programmatically generated by version-controlled code on well-managed data.

grawprog 6y ago
I agree with this. The results and discussion are usually the least interesting parts and figures are usually meaningless without seeing how the data used to generate those figures were collected. The methodology tells you exactly what the people who wrote the paper did. It's where you can see whether they used a sample size of 10 vs 1000, what methods they used to sample their data, the accuracy levels they used in analyzing their data, it's also how a study may be replicated. Without reading the methods, you can't be sure about any other thing in the paper. That's the problem i see with a lot of news reporting on science papers. They use the gp's method of reading. Abstract, images and maybe results if they're really trying. That's how you end up with a lot of sensationalist, contradictory science headlines.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

kenjackson 6y ago

You forgot to mention reading the Related Works section to make sure you're referenced.