More so; Scientific papers have structure - reading them linearly from beginning to end, just that you skip the end, may not tell you anything about what the au

More so; Scientific papers have structure - reading them linearly from beginning to end, just that you skip the end, may not tell you anything about what the authors propose. The beginning (like the introduction and method stuff) generally is a build-up where you connect the contribution with the contemporary knowledge, but it is only in the final discussion and conclusion parts that you will find the argumentation. Picture yourself reading a Hercule Poirot story by Agatha Christie, but stop reading just as Hercule summons all the participants into the living room to wrap up the story. Would you then criticise Christie for writing a bad story :) Of course, the story could be bad with weak character narratives and a lousy plot, but would you not want to know whether the butler really did it before giving up?