read and understand a scientific article?

Reading a scientific paper is a completely different process from reading an article about science in a blog or newspaper. Not only do you read the sections in a different order than they’re presented, but you also have to take notes, read it multiple times, and probably go look up other papers in order to understand some of the details.

Reading a single paper may take you a very long time at first, but be patient with yourself. The process will go much faster as you gain experience. The type of scientific paper I’m discussing here is referred to as a primary research article. It’s a peer-reviewed report of new research on a specific question (or questions). Most articles will be divided into the following sections: abstract, introduction, methods, results, and conclusions / interpretations / discussion.

Before you begin reading, take note of the authors and their institutional affiliations. Some institutions (e.g. University of Texas) are well-respected; others (e.g. the Discovery Institute) may appear to be legitimate research institutions but are actually agenda-driven. Tip: Google “Discovery Institute” to see why you don’t want to use it as a scientific authority on evolutionary theory.

Also take note of the journal in which it’s published. Be cautious of articles from questionable journals, or sites that might resemble peer-reviewed scientific journals but aren’t (e.g. Natural News).

Step-by-Step Instructions for Reading a Primary Research Article

The abstract is that dense first paragraph at the very beginning of a paper. In fact, that’s often the only part of a paper that many non-scientists read when they’re trying to build a scientific argument. (This is a terrible practice. Don’t do it.) I always read the abstract last, because it contains a succinct summary of the entire paper, and I’m concerned about inadvertently becoming biased by the authors’ interpretation of the results.

Not “What is this paper about?” but “What problem is this entire field trying to solve?” This helps you focus on why this research is being done. Look closely for evidence of agenda-motivated research.

What work has been done before in this field to answer the big question? What are the limitations of that work?What, according to the authors, needs to be done next? You need to be able to succinctly explain why this research has been done in order to understand it.

What exactly are the authors trying to answer with their research? There may be multiple questions, or just one. Write them down. If it’s the kind of research that tests one or more null hypotheses, identify it/them.

What are the authors going to do to answer the specific question(s)?

Draw a diagram for each experiment, showing exactly what the authors did. Include as much detail as you need to fully understand the work.

Write one or more paragraphs to summarize the results for each experiment, each figure, and each table. Don’t yet try to decide what the results mean; just write down what they are. You’ll often find that results are summarized in the figures and tables. Pay careful attention to them! You may also need to go to supplementary online information files to find some of the results. Also pay attention to:

• The words “significant” and “non-significant.” These have precise statistical meanings.
• Graphs. Do they have error bars on them? For certain types of studies, a lack of confidence intervals is a major red flag.
• The sample size. Has the study been conducted on 10 people, or 10,000 people? For some research purposes a sample size of 10 is sufficient, but for most studies larger is better.

What do you think they mean? Don’t move on until you have thought about this. It’s OK to change your mind in light of the authors’ interpretation — in fact, you probably will if you’re still a beginner at this kind of analysis — but it’s a really good habit to start forming your own interpretations before you read those of others.

What do the authors think the results mean? Do you agree with them? Can you come up with any alternative way of interpreting them? Do the authors identify any weaknesses in their own study? Do you see any that the authors missed? (Don’t assume they’re infallible!) What do they propose to do as a next step? Do you agree with that?

Does it match what the authors said in the paper? Does it fit with your interpretation of the paper?

Who are the (acknowledged or self-proclaimed) experts in this particular field? Do they have criticisms of the study that you haven’t thought of, or do they generally support it? Don’t neglect to do this! Here’s a place where I do recommend you use Google! But do it last, so you are better prepared to think critically about what other people say.

Very nice query. Hopefully someone will point out the solution to your requirement.

Good question.

I have a feeling that no one is reading the article. especially books. As a result, failures in the fundamental understanding of the object of research. Example: for post-USSR there were 7 projects on anthrax. More than 100 experts participated. 25-30 from the USA. The rest of the aborigines from post-USSR. All stated that there was no data on the Russian Empire. And this is approximately 85-90% of all reported cases. I usually work alone. I found this data. They turned out to be of no use to anyone. All the projects were very successful! All sides are satisfied. Understand as you want. The giant information is simply ignored. Cause? The projects have already been completed. ... In the post-USSR experts went beyond all. It's not a scientific publication (electronic or paper). Dominated by hack-work (халтура). Russian version. У меня такое чувство, что уже никто не читает статьи. тем более книги. В итоге провалы в фундаментальном понимании объекта исследования. Пример: по пост-СССР было 7 проектов по сибирской язве. Учавствовало более 100 экспертов. 25-30 со стороны США. Остальные аборигены из пост-СССР. Все заявили, что данных по Российской империи нет. А это примерно 85-90% всех зарегистрированных случаев. Я обычно работаю в одиночку. Нашел эти данные. Они оказались никому не нужными. Все проекты завершились очень успешно! Все стороны довольны. Понимайте как хотите. Гиганский массив информации просто игнорируется. Причина? Проекты уже завершены. ... В пост-СССР эксперты пошли дальше всех. Уже дело не в виде научной публикации (электронная или бумажная). Доминирует халтура.

Interesting question.

Make two copies of the same paper with different extensions, and display both on the screen(s). It helps to follow the references easily.

Thank you Valery,

I often do that, but id does not help if I need to read many articles in a short time.