4 ms·
Sticking to what you want to understand - for example, when reading a paper, you don't necessarily need to read the methodology, especially if it's out of your
by dmbche 4y ago
Sticking to what you want to understand - for example, when reading a paper, you don't necessarily need to read the methodology, especially if it's out of your field. Read the abstract and the conclusion, identify any part of it that you are suprised by and would like further explanation, and go see that part of the paper.
A lot of the paper is talking to peer and people wanting to verify the validity of the paper - by it being peer reviewed, you can mostly assume that the paper is valid, and stick to what the paper is saying instead of it's methodology.
- noduerme 4y ago>> you can mostly assume that the paper is valid What? Is that something you can still assume in 2023?
- abdou4a 4y ago>> you can mostly assume that the paper is valid you should check this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging or P-hacking and many more...
- dmbche 4y agoYes! I'm well aware of the replication crisis. While this is valid, this shouldn't make us paranoid of all papers. If it's a paper out of your expertise, it's unlikely that you would be able to catch problems with it that the peer review process wouldn't have caught. So in practice, it doesn't really change the way you interact with papers - it should change the way people write them and how the peer review process works.