Cpb-us-e2.wpmucdn.com



How to Read a Scientific PaperTypes of Scientific PapersOriginal article - information based on original researchCase reports - usually of a single caseTechnical notes or Methods - describe a specific technique or procedureReview - detailed analysis of recent research on a specific topicCommentary - short article with author’s personal opinionsEditorial - often short review or critique of original articlesLetter to the Editor - short & on subject of interest to readersOrganization of a PaperTitle - describes paper’s content clearly using keywords (for databases and search engines)Abstract- a summary (~150-200 words) of the problem, the method, the results and the conclusions; the reader can decide whether or not to read the whole articleIntroduction - clearly states the problem being investigated & reasons for the research; summarizes relevant research to provide context; identifies the questions being answered; briefly describes the experiment, hypothesis(es), research question(s) & general experimental design or methodMethods - provides the reader enough details so they can understand and replicate the research; explains how the problem was studied; identifies the procedures followed; explains new methodology in detail; includes the frequency of observations, what types of data were recorded, etc.Results - presents the findings, and explains what was found; shows how the new results are contributing to the body of scientific knowledge; follows a logical sequence based on the tables and figures presenting the findings to answer the question or hypothesis(es)Discussion/Conclusions - describes what the results mean regarding what was already known about the subject; indicates how the results relate to expectations and to the literature previously cited; explains how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward; outlines the next steps for further studyAcknowledgements - recognize various contributions of other workersReferences - the sources of previously published work; includes information not from the experiment and not 'common knowledge'Actions to TakeRead the Abstract: Abstracts usually contain four kinds of information:Purpose or rationale of study (why they did it)Methodology (how they did it)Results (what they found) Conclusion (what it means)Note: Papers may also have a graphical abstract that provides a "big picture" view of the paper's findings.Look at the figures and figure legendsWhat type of experiments were done?Can you understand the experiments before reading the figure legend?Are there any questionable results?Large error barsSubtle changes (look at the X & Y axes)Overdeveloped Western blots, tissue staining, etc.Messy data or intentionally omitted dataThe last figure usually has a "model" that summarizes their findings Read the Introduction: Introductions serve two purposes: creating readers' interest in the subject and providing them with enough information to understand the article. Generally, introductions accomplish this by leading readers from broad information (what is known about the topic) to more specific information (what is not known) to a focal point (what question the authors asked and answered). Thus, authors describe previous work that led to current understanding of the topic (the broad) and then situate their work (the specific) within the field.Note any terms or techniques you need to defineJot down any questions or parts you don't understandIf you are unfamiliar with any of the key concepts in the article, look them up in a textbookRead the Results & Discussion: The Results section contains results-statements of what was found, and reference to the data shown in visuals (figures and tables). Normally, authors do not include information that would need to be referenced, such as comparison to others' results. Instead, that material is placed in the Discussion-placing the work in context of the broader field. The Discussion also functions to provide a clear answer to the question posed in the Introduction and to explain how the results support that conclusion.Skim the Methods: Note any details for experimental methods you haven't encountered before.Write a 'summary' of the articleDescribe the article in your own words - to distill the article down to its 'scientific essence'Note the 'key points' -purpose of the study/questions asked, assumptions, major findings & conclusions, questions unanswered & any surprisesQuestions to ask/how to critique a paperWhat specific problem does this research address? Why is it important?Is the method used a good one? The best one?What are the specific findings?Are the findings supported by persuasive evidence?Is there an alternative interpretation of the data that the author did not address? How are the findings unique/new /unusual or supportive of other work in the field?How do these results relate to the work I'm interested in? To other work I've read about.What are some of the specific applications of the ideas presented here? What are some further experiments that would answer remaining questions?Difficulties in Reading PapersPapers can be poorly written:Some scientists are poor writers & others do not enjoy writing; author can be so familiar with the material that he/she cannot see it from the point of view of a reader not familiar with the topicBad writing has consequences for the reader:Logical connections are often left out - instead of saying why an experiment was done, or what ideas were being tested, the experiment is simply 'described'; papers often are cluttered with 'jargon'; authors often do not provide a clear road-map through the paperThe reader cannot easily understand what the experiment was:The descriptions are not well-written, and it is ambiguous what was doneAuthors refer back to previous papers; these refer in turn to previous papers in a long chain; it is unclear which methods were used in this experimentAuthors are uncritical about their experiments:If they firmly believe in a particular model, they may not be open-minded about other possibilities; these may not be tested experimentally, and may go unmentioned in the discussionAuthors do not clearly distinguish between fact and speculation especially in the Discussion/ConclusionsThe sociology of science:Many authors are ambitious and wish to publish in trendy journals; they overstate the importance of their findings, or put a speculation into the title in a way that makes it sound like a well-established finding ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download