I try not to read primary research papers. Most of them are wrong[0]. Even the one's that are right are written for consumption by a very specialized community

I try not to read primary research papers. Most of them are wrong[0]. Even the one's that are right are written for consumption by a very specialized community that I'm rarely a member of. If I decide that i absolutely need to understand a particular paper, I start by finding a relevant review article. I look and see if the papers cited in the background section are also cited in a recent review of the state of the field. These are less likely to be flat out wrong, and they provide better context. I try to read a paper with other people (preferably people who know the field) and we take turns trying to explain the figures and methods to each other. But to reiterate: any given paper is most likely wrong and your default position should be persistent skepticism. [0] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/