3 ms·
The answer depends on why you're reading the papers, of course. If it's only a dilettante's interest, then read it like you would read news: skim for a genera
by jordanpg 12y ago
The answer depends on why you're reading the papers, of course.
If it's only a dilettante's interest, then read it like you would read news: skim for a general sense, emphasizing the introduction, conclusion, and graphics.
For academics reading papers, the situation is (potentially) different. There are genuine professional consequences for failing to read or understand the material.
There are many approaches -- many good ideas here -- most of which are rehashing of basic study skills, but I would add one piece of generic advice.
Reading academic papers well takes a lot of time. Sometimes this is called active reading. If you are doing this type of reading, make sure you take something away from the reading. And by "take away" I mean "memorize", not index in Mandalay or outline in Evernote. Deliberately bolt each bit of information onto the edifice you have already built. Think about it in context. Wonder about it. Doubt it. Be skeptical. If you can't summarize the paper next week at a cocktail party, you're not reading, you're just filling out a bibliography.
- j2kun 12y ago> There are genuine professional consequences for failing to read or understand the material. I wish they were more genuine and serious. I'm only a graduate student and I already can't count the number of reviews I've gotten where the reviewer clearly did not read the paper closely.
- stewbrew 12y agoI have to disagree. IMHO most papers weren't written to be read with care. So you shouldn't waste your time on them. Skimming through is ok when you have to filter out the few papers that actually make a difference.
- jordanpg 12y agoI don't think this can be true, except for experts. In the biography of Oppenheimer, American Prometheus, he was described as having an uncanny ability to flip through publications and understand their conclusion and significance in seconds. That description, or anything like it, certainly isn't true for me. I would suggest that any paper that you perceive as a waste of time or not worth reading with care probably isn't worth reading at all. If it is the case that this sort of thing is the norm, as I know full well it is in some disciplines, then that says something important about what's being published in that discipline. It says nothing about what the best way to read and understand the latest pubs in a discipline with real research going on.