Can Anyone Learn to Understand a Scientific Paper?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ryan_m_b
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Paper Scientific
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the accessibility and understanding of scientific papers, particularly focusing on strategies for reading them effectively. Participants explore various approaches to engaging with scientific literature, considering both the necessity of prior knowledge and the effectiveness of different reading methods.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant shares a blog entry aimed at helping laypersons understand scientific papers, emphasizing its accessibility and usefulness.
  • Another participant expresses a preference for a specific reading strategy that prioritizes equations over text, suggesting a method focused on identifying interesting content quickly.
  • A contrasting viewpoint argues that a foundational understanding of science is essential before attempting to read scientific papers, deeming the guide ineffective for those without prior knowledge.
  • Some participants agree that a basic understanding of the subject matter is necessary for critical reading, while others question how much knowledge is required to effectively utilize the guide.
  • There is a suggestion that specific reading strategies may be arbitrary, but sharing different approaches can still be beneficial.
  • A humorous remark indicates that some papers may not make sense regardless of the reading method employed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the necessity of prior scientific knowledge for understanding papers, with some advocating for foundational learning and others supporting the guide's utility for laypersons. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the effectiveness of different reading strategies and the required level of scientific understanding.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying opinions on the prerequisites for understanding scientific literature, highlighting the subjective nature of reading strategies and the potential limitations of the guide based on individual backgrounds.

Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Messages
5,964
Reaction score
727
I came across this blog entry on how to read and understand a scientific paper and thought I'd share it here. It's very accessible and right on the money IMO, especially point 2 which is very basic but I often see people fail to do. Enjoy all :smile:

I want to help people become more scientifically literate, so I wrote this guide for how a layperson can approach reading and understanding a scientific research paper. It’s appropriate for someone who has no background whatsoever in science or medicine, and based on the assumption that he or she is doing this for the purpose of getting a basic understanding of a paper and deciding whether or not it’s a reputable study...

http://violentmetaphors.com/2013/08/25/how-to-read-and-understand-a-scientific-paper-2/
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Good resource. My pet peeve is #1.
 
That's very thorough. My usual modus operandi is:

1. Skip all the words because probably the authors are not describing what they've done in the same words I would use. I want to see if what they've done is interesting to me before I invest a lot of time.

2. Keep scrolling down until you see some equations. Are they interesting equations? Scroll through a section or two of equations and see if they lead anywhere.

3. Get tired of spinning the scroll wheel and just hit End to jump to the bottom. Scroll back up past the References and Conclusions and look at the last few lines of equations. Did the paper go anywhere interesting?

4. Read the Conclusions. Hmm, so that's what they did, in their interpretation.

5. If that's interesting, jump back up to Section 2 (the one after the Introduction), and read the story in more detail.

6. Finally, read the Introduction and then the Conclusions again. This is where, hopefully, the authors have pointed out other related papers that might be useful to dig up.

This method is geared toward finding papers that I can use; not so much toward understanding every detail. Probably isn't an effective method for learning new things.
 
If this is really "a guide for non-scientists" it's completely wrong IMO.

Step 1: Learn some science. If you can't be bothered to do that, stop here!

Step 2: Ignore the how-to guide, because it no longer applies to you.
 
I agree it is necessary to know something about the subject matter to properly understand a paper but even then this is good advice for how to read a paper critically.
 
Aleph, the two questions are:

1) How much science is required to learn before this how to guide is unnecessary and I am capable of picking up a paper and reading it front to back straight up and understand the paper at the end

2) How much science knowledge is required to follow the advice of this article and understand the paper from that.

If 2 is smaller than 1 by at least the amount of additional time I will spend reading the paper by following this article, then the information is useful. And I suspect this is very true
 
Specific instructions are arbitrary, but seeing other people's strategies is informative.
 
Some papers, when read upside down, don't make anymore sense than when read rightside up.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
14K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K