read research article

Evaluating Information

• Understanding Primary and Secondary Sources
• Exploring and Evaluating Popular, Trade, and Scholarly Sources

Reading a Scholarly Article

Common components of original research articles, while you read, reading strategies, reading for citations, further reading, learning objectives.

This page was created to help you:

Identify the different parts of a scholarly article

Efficiently analyze and evaluate scholarly articles for usefulness

This page will focus on reading scholarly articles — published reports on original research in the social sciences, humanities, and STEM fields. Reading and understanding this type of article can be challenging. This guide will help you develop these skills, which can be learned and improved upon with practice.

We will go over:

There are many different types of articles that may be found in scholarly journals and other academic publications. For more, see:

• Types of Information Sources

Reading a scholarly article isn’t like reading a novel, website, or newspaper article. It’s likely you won’t read and absorb it from beginning to end, all at once.

Instead, think of scholarly reading as inquiry, i.e., asking a series of questions as you do your research or read for class. Your reading should be guided by your class topic or your own research question or thesis.

For example, as you read, you might ask yourself:

• What questions does it help to answer, or what topics does it address?
• Are these relevant or useful to me?
• Does the article offer a helpful framework for understanding my topic or question (theoretical framework)?
• Do the authors use interesting or innovative methods to conduct their research that might be relevant to me?
• Does the article contain references I might consult for further information?

In Practice

Scanning and skimming are essential when reading scholarly articles, especially at the beginning stages of your research or when you have a lot of material in front of you.

Many scholarly articles are organized to help you scan and skim efficiently. The next time you need to read an article, practice scanning the following sections (where available) and skim their contents:

• The abstract: This summary provides a birds’ eye view of the article contents.
• The introduction:  What is the topic(s) of the research article? What is its main idea or question?
• The list of keywords or descriptors
• Methods: How did the author(s) go about answering their question/collecting their data?
• Section headings:  Stop and skim those sections you may find relevant.
• Figures:  Offer lots of information in quick visual format.
• The conclusion:  What are the findings and/or conclusions of this article?

Mark Up Your Text

Read with purpose.

• Scanning and skimming with a pen in hand can help to focus your reading.
• Use color for quick reference. Try highlighters or some sticky notes. Use different colors to represent different topics.
• Write in the margins, putting down thoughts and questions about the content as you read.
• Use digital markup features available in eBook platforms or third-party solutions, like Adobe Reader or Hypothes.is.

Categorize Information

Create your own informal system of organization. It doesn’t have to be complicated — start basic, and be sure it works for you.

• Jot down a few of your own keywords for each article. These keywords may correspond with important topics being addressed in class or in your research paper.  
• Write keywords on print copies or use the built-in note taking features in reference management tools like Zotero and EndNote.  
• Your keywords and system of organization may grow more complex the deeper you get into your reading.

Highlight words, terms, phrases, acronyms, etc. that are unfamiliar to you. You can highlight on the text or make a list in a notetaking program.

• Decide if the term is essential to your understanding of the article or if you can look it up later and keep scanning.

You may scan an article and discover that it isn’t what you thought it was about. Before you close the tab or delete that PDF, consider scanning the article one more time, specifically to look for citations that might be more on-target for your topic.  

You don’t need to look at every citation in the bibliography — you can look to the literature review to identify the core references that relate to your topic. Literature reviews are typically organized by subtopic within a research question or thesis. Find the paragraph or two that are closely aligned with your topic, make note of the author names, then locate those citations in the bibliography or footnote.

See the Find Articles page for what to do next:

• Find Articles

See the Citation Searching page for more on following a citation trail:

• Citation Searching
• Taking notes effectively. [blog post] Raul Pacheco-Vega, PhD
• How to read an academic paper. [video] UBCiSchool. 2013
• How to (seriously) read a scientific paper. (2016, March 21). Science | AAAS.
• How to read a paper. S. Keshav. 2007. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 37, 3 (July 2007), 83–84.

This guide was designed to help you:

• << Previous: Exploring and Evaluating Popular, Trade, and Scholarly Sources
• Last Updated: Feb 16, 2024 3:55 PM
• URL: https://libguides.brown.edu/evaluate

Brown University Library  |  Providence, RI 02912  |  (401) 863-2165  |  Contact  |  Comments  |  Library Feedback  |  Site Map

Library Intranet

• Make an Appointment
• Study Connect
• Request Workshop

Plan, Prioritize, Pass!

Get ready for finals with the arc.

How to read and understand a scientific paper

How to read and understand a scientific paper: a guide for non-scientists, london school of economics and political science, jennifer raff.

From vaccinations to climate change, getting science wrong has very real consequences. But journal articles, a primary way science is communicated in academia, are a different format to newspaper articles or blogs and require a level of skill and undoubtedly a greater amount of patience. Here  Jennifer Raff   has prepared a helpful guide for non-scientists on how to read a scientific paper. These steps and tips will be useful to anyone interested in the presentation of scientific findings and raise important points for scientists to consider with their own writing practice.

My post,  The truth about vaccinations: Your physician knows more than the University of Google  sparked a very lively discussion, with comments from several people trying to persuade me (and the other readers) that  their  paper disproved everything that I’d been saying. While I encourage you to go read the comments and contribute your own, here I want to focus on the much larger issue that this debate raised: what constitutes scientific authority?

It’s not just a fun academic problem. Getting the science wrong has very real consequences. For example, when a community doesn’t vaccinate children because they’re afraid of “toxins” and think that prayer (or diet, exercise, and “clean living”) is enough to prevent infection, outbreaks happen.

“Be skeptical. But when you get proof, accept proof.” –Michael Specter

What constitutes enough proof? Obviously everyone has a different answer to that question. But to form a truly educated opinion on a scientific subject, you need to become familiar with current research in that field. And to do that, you have to read the “primary research literature” (often just called “the literature”). You might have tried to read scientific papers before and been frustrated by the dense, stilted writing and the unfamiliar jargon. I remember feeling this way!  Reading and understanding research papers is a skill which every single doctor and scientist has had to learn during graduate school.  You can learn it too, but like any skill it takes patience and practice.

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.

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). Another useful type of publication is a  review article . Review articles are also peer-reviewed, and don’t present new information, but summarize multiple primary research articles, to give a sense of the consensus, debates, and unanswered questions within a field.  (I’m not going to say much more about them here, but be cautious about which review articles you read. Remember that they are only a snapshot of the research at the time they are published.  A review article on, say, genome-wide association studies from 2001 is not going to be very informative in 2013. So much research has been done in the intervening years that the field has changed considerably).

Before you begin: some general advice

Reading a scientific paper is a completely different process than 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 for some of the details. Reading a single paper may take you a very long time at first. Be patient with yourself. The process will go much faster as you gain experience.

Most primary research papers will be divided into the following sections: Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, and Conclusions/Interpretations/Discussion. The order will depend on which journal it’s published in. Some journals have additional files (called Supplementary Online Information) which contain important details of the research, but are published online instead of in the article itself (make sure you don’t skip these files).

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:  g oogle  “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. Reputable (biomedical) journals will be indexed by  Pubmed . [EDIT: Several people have reminded me that non-biomedical journals won’t be on Pubmed, and they’re absolutely correct! (thanks for catching that, I apologize for being sloppy here). Check out  Web of Science  for a more complete index of science journals. And please feel free to share other resources in the comments!]  Beware of  questionable journals .

As you read, write down  every single word  that you don’t understand. You’re going to have to look them all up (yes, every one. I know it’s a total pain. But you won’t understand the paper if you don’t understand the vocabulary. Scientific words have extremely precise meanings).

Step-by-step instructions for reading a primary research article

1. Begin by reading the introduction, not the abstract.

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.).  When I’m choosing papers to read, I decide what’s relevant to my interests based on a combination of the title and abstract. But when I’ve got a collection of papers assembled for deep reading, I always read the abstract last. I do this because abstracts contain a succinct summary of the entire paper, and I’m concerned about inadvertently becoming biased by the authors’ interpretation of the results.

2. Identify the BIG QUESTION.

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.

3. Summarize the background in five sentences or less.

Here are some questions to guide you:

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?

The five sentences part is a little arbitrary, but it forces you to be concise and really think about the context of this research. You need to be able to explain why this research has been done in order to understand it.

4.   Identify the SPECIFIC QUESTION(S)

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.

Not sure what a null hypothesis is? Go read this one  and try to identify the null hypotheses in it. Keep in mind that not every paper will test a null hypothesis.

5. Identify the approach

What are the authors going to do to answer the SPECIFIC QUESTION(S)?

6. Now read the methods section. Draw a diagram for each experiment, showing exactly what the authors did.

I mean  literally  draw it. Include as much detail as you need to fully understand the work.  As an example, here is what I drew to sort out the methods for a paper I read today ( Battaglia et al. 2013: “The first peopling of South America: New evidence from Y-chromosome haplogroup Q” ). This is much less detail than you’d probably need, because it’s a paper in my specialty and I use these methods all the time.  But if you were reading this, and didn’t happen to know what “process data with reduced-median method using Network” means, you’d need to look that up.

Image credit: author

You don’t need to understand the methods in enough detail to replicate the experiment—that’s something reviewers have to do—but you’re not ready to move on to the results until you can explain the basics of the methods to someone else.

7.   Read the results section. 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 find that, particularly in good papers, the majority of the results are summarized in the figures and tables. Pay careful attention to them!  You may also need to go to the Supplementary Online Information file to find some of the results.

 It is at this point where difficulties can arise if statistical tests are employed in the paper and you don’t have enough of a background to understand them. I can’t teach you stats in this post, but  here , and here   are some basic resources to help you.  I STRONGLY advise you to become familiar with them.

Things to pay attention to in the results section:

• Any time the words “significant” or “non-significant” are used. These have precise statistical meanings. Read more about this  here .
• If there are 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, or 10,000 people? (For some research purposes, a sample size of 10 is sufficient, but for most studies larger is better).

8. Do the results answer the SPECIFIC QUESTION(S)? What do you think they mean?

Don’t move on until you have thought about this. It’s okay 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.

9. Read the conclusion/discussion/Interpretation section.

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?

10. Now, go back to the beginning and read the abstract.

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

11. FINAL STEP:  (Don’t neglect doing this)  What do other researchers say about this 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?

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.

(12. This step may be optional for you, depending on why you’re reading a particular paper. But for me, it’s critical! I go through the “Literature cited” section to see what other papers the authors cited. This allows me to better identify the important papers in a particular field, see if the authors cited my own papers (KIDDING!….mostly), and find sources of useful ideas or techniques.)

UPDATE: If you would like to see an example of how to read a science paper using this framework, you can find one  here .

I gratefully acknowledge Professors José Bonner and Bill Saxton for teaching me how to critically read and analyze scientific papers using this method. I’m honored to have the chance to pass along what they taught me.

I’ve written a shorter version of this guide for teachers to hand out to their classes. If you’d like a PDF, shoot me an email: jenniferraff (at) utexas (dot) edu. For further comments and additional questions on this guide, please see the Comments Section on  the original post .

This piece originally appeared on the  author’s personal blog  and is reposted with permission.

Featured image credit:  Scientists in a laboratory of the University of La Rioja  by  Urcomunicacion  (Wikimedia CC BY3.0)

Note: This article gives the views of the authors, and not the position of the LSE Impact blog, nor of the London School of Economics. Please review our  Comments Policy  if you have any concerns on posting a comment below.

Jennifer Raff (Indiana University—dual Ph.D. in genetics and bioanthropology) is an assistant professor in the Department of Anthropology, University of Kansas, director and Principal Investigator of the KU Laboratory of Human Population Genomics, and assistant director of KU’s Laboratory of Biological Anthropology. She is also a research affiliate with the University of Texas anthropological genetics laboratory. She is keenly interested in public outreach and scientific literacy, writing about topics in science and pseudoscience for her blog ( violentmetaphors.com ), the Huffington Post, and for the  Social Evolution Forum .

• Learning Consultations
• Peer Tutoring
• Getting Started
• Peer Education Courses
• Become a Peer Educator
• ADHD/LD Support
• Workshops & Outreach
• Learning Strategies
• Manage Time
• All Resources
• For Faculty & Staff

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• Reading Research Effectively
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

Reading a Scholarly Article or Research Paper

Identifying a research problem to investigate usually requires a preliminary search for and critical review of the literature in order to gain an understanding about how scholars have examined a topic. Scholars rarely structure research studies in a way that can be followed like a story; they are complex and detail-intensive and often written in a descriptive and conclusive narrative form. However, in the social and behavioral sciences, journal articles and stand-alone research reports are generally organized in a consistent format that makes it easier to compare and contrast studies and to interpret their contents.

General Reading Strategies

W hen you first read an article or research paper, focus on asking specific questions about each section. This strategy can help with overall comprehension and with understanding how the content relates [or does not relate] to the problem you want to investigate. As you review more and more studies, the process of understanding and critically evaluating the research will become easier because the content of what you review will begin to coalescence around common themes and patterns of analysis. Below are recommendations on how to read each section of a research paper effectively. Note that the sections to read are out of order from how you will find them organized in a journal article or research paper.

1.  Abstract

The abstract summarizes the background, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions of a scholarly article or research paper. Use the abstract to filter out sources that may have appeared useful when you began searching for information but, in reality, are not relevant. Questions to consider when reading the abstract are:

• Is this study related to my question or area of research?
• What is this study about and why is it being done ?
• What is the working hypothesis or underlying thesis?
• What is the primary finding of the study?
• Are there words or terminology that I can use to either narrow or broaden the parameters of my search for more information?

2.  Introduction

If, after reading the abstract, you believe the paper may be useful, focus on examining the research problem and identifying the questions the author is trying to address. This information is usually located within the first few paragraphs of the introduction or in the concluding paragraph. Look for information about how and in what way this relates to what you are investigating. In addition to the research problem, the introduction should provide the main argument and theoretical framework of the study and, in the last paragraphs of the introduction, describe what the author(s) intend to accomplish. Questions to consider when reading the introduction include:

• What is this study trying to prove or disprove?
• What is the author(s) trying to test or demonstrate?
• What do we already know about this topic and what gaps does this study try to fill or contribute a new understanding to the research problem?
• Why should I care about what is being investigated?
• Will this study tell me anything new related to the research problem I am investigating?

3.  Literature Review

The literature review describes and critically evaluates what is already known about a topic. Read the literature review to obtain a big picture perspective about how the topic has been studied and to begin the process of seeing where your potential study fits within the domain of prior research. Questions to consider when reading the literature review include:

• W hat other research has been conducted about this topic and what are the main themes that have emerged?
• What does prior research reveal about what is already known about the topic and what remains to be discovered?
• What have been the most important past findings about the research problem?
• How has prior research led the author(s) to conduct this particular study?
• Is there any prior research that is unique or groundbreaking?
• Are there any studies I could use as a model for designing and organizing my own study?

4.  Discussion/Conclusion

The discussion and conclusion are usually the last two sections of text in a scholarly article or research report. They reveal how the author(s) interpreted the findings of their research and presented recommendations or courses of action based on those findings. Often in the conclusion, the author(s) highlight recommendations for further research that can be used to develop your own study. Questions to consider when reading the discussion and conclusion sections include:

• What is the overall meaning of the study and why is this important? [i.e., how have the author(s) addressed the " So What? " question].
• What do you find to be the most important ways that the findings have been interpreted?
• What are the weaknesses in their argument?
• Do you believe conclusions about the significance of the study and its findings are valid?
• What limitations of the study do the author(s) describe and how might this help formulate my own research?
• Does the conclusion contain any recommendations for future research?

5.  Methods/Methodology

The methods section describes the materials, techniques, and procedures for gathering information used to examine the research problem. If what you have read so far closely supports your understanding of the topic, then move on to examining how the author(s) gathered information during the research process. Questions to consider when reading the methods section include:

• Did the study use qualitative [based on interviews, observations, content analysis], quantitative [based on statistical analysis], or a mixed-methods approach to examining the research problem?
• What was the type of information or data used?
• Could this method of analysis be repeated and can I adopt the same approach?
• Is enough information available to repeat the study or should new data be found to expand or improve understanding of the research problem?

6.  Results

After reading the above sections, you should have a clear understanding of the general findings of the study. Therefore, read the results section to identify how key findings were discussed in relation to the research problem. If any non-textual elements [e.g., graphs, charts, tables, etc.] are confusing, focus on the explanations about them in the text. Questions to consider when reading the results section include:

• W hat did the author(s) find and how did they find it?
• Does the author(s) highlight any findings as most significant?
• Are the results presented in a factual and unbiased way?
• Does the analysis of results in the discussion section agree with how the results are presented?
• Is all the data present and did the author(s) adequately address gaps?
• What conclusions do you formulate from this data and does it match with the author's conclusions?

7.  References

The references list the sources used by the author(s) to document what prior research and information was used when conducting the study. After reviewing the article or research paper, use the references to identify additional sources of information on the topic and to examine critically how these sources supported the overall research agenda. Questions to consider when reading the references include:

• Do the sources cited by the author(s) reflect a diversity of disciplinary viewpoints, i.e., are the sources all from a particular field of study or do the sources reflect multiple areas of study?
• Are there any unique or interesting sources that could be incorporated into my study?
• What other authors are respected in this field, i.e., who has multiple works cited or is cited most often by others?
• What other research should I review to clarify any remaining issues or that I need more information about?

NOTE :  A final strategy in reviewing research is to copy and paste the title of the source [journal article, book, research report] into Google Scholar . If it appears, look for a "cited by" followed by a hyperlinked number [e.g., Cited by 45]. This number indicates how many times the study has been subsequently cited in other, more recently published works. This strategy, known as citation tracking, can be an effective means of expanding your review of pertinent literature based on a study you have found useful and how scholars have cited it. The same strategies described above can be applied to reading articles you find in the list of cited by references.

Reading Tip

Specific Reading Strategies

Effectively reading scholarly research is an acquired skill that involves attention to detail and an ability to comprehend complex ideas, data, and theoretical concepts in a way that applies logically to the research problem you are investigating. Here are some specific reading strategies to consider.

As You are Reading

• Focus on information that is most relevant to the research problem; skim over the other parts.
• As noted above, read content out of order! This isn't a novel; you want to start with the spoiler to quickly assess the relevance of the study.
• Think critically about what you read and seek to build your own arguments; not everything may be entirely valid, examined effectively, or thoroughly investigated.
• Look up the definitions of unfamiliar words, concepts, or terminology. A good scholarly source is Credo Reference .

Taking notes as you read will save time when you go back to examine your sources. Here are some suggestions:

• Mark or highlight important text as you read [e.g., you can use the highlight text  feature in a PDF document]
• Take notes in the margins [e.g., Adobe Reader offers pop-up sticky notes].
• Highlight important quotations; consider using different colors to differentiate between quotes and other types of important text.
• Summarize key points about the study at the end of the paper. To save time, these can be in the form of a concise bulleted list of statements [e.g., intro has provides historical background; lit review has important sources; good conclusions].

Write down thoughts that come to mind that may help clarify your understanding of the research problem. Here are some examples of questions to ask yourself:

• Do I understand all of the terminology and key concepts?
• Do I understand the parts of this study most relevant to my topic?
• What specific problem does the research address and why is it important?
• Are there any issues or perspectives the author(s) did not consider?
• Do I have any reason to question the validity or reliability of this research?
• How do the findings relate to my research interests and to other works which I have read?

Adapted from text originally created by Holly Burt, Behavioral Sciences Librarian, USC Libraries, April 2018.

Another Reading Tip

When is it Important to Read the Entire Article or Research Paper

Laubepin argues, "Very few articles in a field are so important that every word needs to be read carefully." However, this implies that some studies are worth reading carefully. As painful and time-consuming as it may seem, there are valid reasons for reading a study in its entirety from beginning to end. Here are some examples:

• Studies Published Very Recently .  The author(s) of a recent, well written study will provide a survey of the most important or impactful prior research in the literature review section. This can establish an understanding of how scholars in the past addressed the research problem. In addition, the most recently published sources will highlight what is currently known and what gaps in understanding currently exist about a topic, usually in the form of the need for further research in the conclusion .
• Surveys of the Research Problem .  Some papers provide a comprehensive analytical overview of the research problem. Reading this type of study can help you understand underlying issues and discover why scholars have chosen to investigate the topic. This is particularly important if the study was published very recently because the author(s) should cite all or most of the key prior research on the topic. Note that, if it is a long-standing problem, there may be studies that specifically review the literature to identify gaps that remain. These studies often include the word review in their title [e.g., Hügel, Stephan, and Anna R. Davies. "Public Participation, Engagement, and Climate Change Adaptation: A Review of the Research Literature." Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 11 (July-August 2020): https://doi.org/10.1002/ wcc.645].
• Highly Cited .  If you keep coming across the same citation to a study while you are reviewing the literature, this implies it was foundational in establishing an understanding of the research problem or the study had a significant impact within the literature [positive or negative]. Carefully reading a highly cited source can help you understand how the topic emerged and motivated scholars to further investigate the problem. It also could be a study you need to cite as foundational in your own paper to demonstrate to the reader that you understand the roots of the problem.
• Historical Overview .  Knowing the historical background of a research problem may not be the focus of your analysis. Nevertheless, carefully reading a study that provides a thorough description and analysis of the history behind an event, issue, or phenomenon can add important context to understanding the topic and what aspect of the problem you may want to examine further.
• Innovative Methodological Design .  Some studies are significant and worth reading in their entirety because the author(s) designed a unique or innovative approach to researching the problem. This may justify reading the entire study because it can motivate you to think creatively about pursuing an alternative or non-traditional approach to examining your topic of interest. These types of studies are generally easy to identify because they are often cited in others works because of their unique approach to studying the research problem.
• Cross-disciplinary Approach .  R eviewing studies produced outside of your discipline is an essential component of investigating research problems in the social and behavioral sciences. Consider reading a study that was conducted by author(s) based in a different discipline [e.g., an anthropologist studying political cultures; a study of hiring practices in companies published in a sociology journal]. This approach can generate a new understanding or a unique perspective about the topic . If you are not sure how to search for studies published in a discipline outside of your major or of the course you are taking, contact a librarian for assistance.

Laubepin, Frederique. How to Read (and Understand) a Social Science Journal Article . Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ISPSR), 2013; Shon, Phillip Chong Ho. How to Read Journal Articles in the Social Sciences: A Very Practical Guide for Students . 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2015; Lockhart, Tara, and Mary Soliday. "The Critical Place of Reading in Writing Transfer (and Beyond): A Report of Student Experiences." Pedagogy 16 (2016): 23-37; Maguire, Moira, Ann Everitt Reynolds, and Brid Delahunt. "Reading to Be: The Role of Academic Reading in Emergent Academic and Professional Student Identities." Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice 17 (2020): 5-12.

• << Previous: 1. Choosing a Research Problem
• Next: Narrowing a Topic Idea >>
• Last Updated: Apr 24, 2024 10:51 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

How To Skim Read Journal Articles

Fast-Track Your Literature Review By Focusing On Three Sections

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | May 2020

If you’ve just started your literature review process, you’re probably sitting on a pile of scientific journal articles and research papers that are (1) lengthy and (2) written in very dense , academic language that is difficult to digest (at the best of times). It’s intimidating, for sure – and you’re probably wondering how on earth you’re going to get through it all.

You might be asking yourself some of these questions:

• Do I need to read every journal article to make sure I cover everything?
• Do I need to read every section of each article to understand it?
• If not, which sections should I focus on?

First things first, relax (I can feel your tension!). In this post, I’m going answer these questions and explain how to approach your review of the literature the smart way , so that you focus only on the most relevant literature and don’t waste time on low-value activities.

So, grab a nice hot cup of coffee (or tea, or whatever – just no beers) and let’s take a look at those questions, one at a time.

Question 1:

Do i need to read every journal article on my topic when doing my literature review.

The good news is that you don’t need to read every single journal article on your topic. Doing so would just be a waste of your time, as you’re generally looking to understand the current state of the literature – not the full history of it.

But… and this is an important but. You do need to read quite a bit to make sure that you have a comprehensive view of the current state of the literature (and of knowledge) in your area of research.

Quality trumps quantity when it comes to reviewing the literature. In other words, you need to focus on reading the journal articles that are most cited (i.e. that other academics have referenced) in relation to your topic keyword(s). You should focus on articles that are recent, relevant and well cited .

But how do I know if an article is well cited?

Thankfully, you can check the number of citations for any article really easily using Google Scholar . Just enter the article title in Google Scholar and it will show you how many citations it has – here’s an example:

In fact, Google Scholar is a great way to find the key journal articles for any keyword (topic) in general, so chances are you’ll be using this to find your journal articles in the first place. Therefore, be sure to keep an eye on citation count while you’re sourcing articles. It would also be smart to dedicate a column to it in your literature review catalogue (you can download one for free here ) so that you can quickly filter and sort by citation count.

A quick caveat – citation count is not a perfect metric for the quality of a journal article (unfortunately there is no unicorn metric that indicates quality). While its usually a good indicator of how popular an article is, it doesn’t mean the findings of the article are perfect (remember, the Kardashians are popular too – enough said). To the contrary, it could indicate that there’s a lot of controversy regarding the findings (sounds like the Kardashians again).

So, long story short – don’t be conned by citation count alone. Be sure to also pay attention the to quality of the journal each article is published in (you can check journal rank here ), and pay attention to what other articles say about any given popular article.

Need a helping hand?

Question 2:

Do i need to read the full journal journal article when doing my literature review.

Some more good news – no, you don’t need to read every single word in each journal article you review as part of your literature review. When you’re just starting your literature review, you need to get a big picture view of what each journal article is saying (in other words, the key questions and findings). Generally you can get a good feel for this by reading a few key sections in each article (we’ll get to these next).

That said (ah, there had to be a catch, right?), as you refine your literature review and establish more of a focus, you’ll need to dive deeper into the most important articles. Some articles will be central to your research – but you probably still don’t need to read them from first page to the last.

Question 3:

Which sections of each journal article should i read.

To get a big-picture view of what any article is all about, there are three sections that are very useful. These three sections generally explain both what the article is about (i.e. what questions they were trying to answer) and what the findings were (i.e. what their answers were). This is exactly what you’re looking for, so these three sections provide a great way for you to save time during your literature review.

So, let’s take a look at the three sections:

1 – The abstract (or executive summary)

The abstract (which is located right up front) provides a high-level overview of what the article is about. This is giving you the first little taste of the soup , so to speak. Generally, it will discuss what the research objectives were was and why they were important. This will give you a clear indication of how relevant the article is to your specific research, so pay close attention.

Sometimes the abstract will also discuss the findings of the article (much like a thesis abstract ), but this is not always the case (yeah, the abstract can be such a tease sometimes). If it does, it’s a bonus. But even so, you should still read the other sections, as the abstract only provides a very high-level view, and can miss out on specific nuances of the research.

2 – The introduction section

The introduction section will go into more detail about the topic being investigated and why this is important for the field of research. This will help you understand a bit more detail about what exactly they were investigating and in what context . Context is really important, so pay close attention to that.

For example, they might be investigating your exact topic, but in a country other than your own, or a different industry. In that case, you’d know that you need to pay very close attention to exactly how they undertook their research.

So, make sure you pay close attention to the introduction chapter to fully understand the focus of the research and the context in which it took place . Both will be important when it comes to writing your literature review, as you’ll need to use this information to build your arguments.

3 – The conclusion

While the introduction section tells you what the high-level questions the researchers asked, the conclusion section tells you what answers they found . This provides you with something of a shortcut to grasping the gist of the article, without reading all the dull and dry detail – yeah, it’s a little cheeky, I know. Of course, the conclusion is not going to highlight every nuance of the analysis findings, so if the article is highly relevant to your research, you should make sure to also pay close attention to the analysis findings section.

In addition to the findings of the research, the conclusion section will generally also highlight areas that require further research . In other words, they’ll outline areas that genuinely require further academic investigation (aka research gaps ). This is a gold mine for refining your topic into something highly original and well-rooted in the existing literature – just make sure that the article is recent, or someone else may have already exploited the research gap. If you’re still looking to identify a research topic, be sure to check out our video covering that here .

By reviewing these three sections of each article, you’ll save yourself a lot of time, while still getting a good understanding of what each article is saying. Keep in mind that as your literature review progresses, you focus will narrow and you’ll develop a set of core highly relevant articles, which you should sink your teeth into more deeply.

Let’s Recap

In this post, we looked at how to read academic journal articles quickly and efficiently, to save you many hours of pain while undertaking your literature review.

The key takeaways to remember are:

• You don’t need to read every single journal article covering your topic – focus on the most popular, authoritative and recent ones
• You don’t need to read every word of every article. To start, you just need to get a high-level understanding of the literature, which you can get by focusing on three key areas in each journal article.
• The three sections of each journal article to review are the abstract , the introduction and the conclusion .
• Once you’ve narrowed down your focus and have a core set of highly relevant, highly authoritative articles, you can dive deeper into them, paying closer attention to the methodology and analysis findings.

And there you have it – now go on and hammer through that pile of articles at warp speed. While you’re at it, why not also check out our other posts and videos covering research topic ideation , dissertation and thesis proposal , literature review , methodology , analysis and more.

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Literature Review Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

You Might Also Like:

28 Comments

Thanks Derek for the tips

Reviewing the Literature can be overwhelming if you do not have the plan or the right structure to navigate the pool of information

You’re most welcome, Aletta. All the best with your literature review.

I personally have found these tips as a key to my long standing problem of reading articles. Thanks a million times

Simple and easy to read guidance… funny too

Great to hear that, Rishen 🙂

Much appreciated Derek. I already realized I could not read everything, but you confirming that has brought a lot of relief.

Great to hear that, Mazwakhe 🙂

Derek sir, I’m really happy for you.You made me to think very smart and effective way to do the review of literature.

Thank you so much.

Dear Derek, thank you for your easy and straight forward guidance,

Thanks for the interesting and informative article

You’re most welcome, Sanoon. Glad it was useful.

Thanks for the insights, I am about to start my literature review and this article as well as the other material from GradCoach will help me on the jorney.

You’re most welcome! Good luck writing your literature review

It was a great and effective information.

Thank you that was very helpful. I am taking a directed studies summer course, and I have to submit a literature review by end of August. That article was short, straight to the point and interesting 🙂 thank you Derek

You’re welcome, Emy 🙂 Good luck with your studies!

Thanks Derek. Reading this article has given me a boost because I have been so stock on how to go about my literature review.Though I know I am not meant to read the whole article.But your explanation has given me a greater insight.

Thank you very much sir for your great explanation 😄 Hopefully I’ve enough diligence and courage to start

You’re most welcome, Felicia. Good luck with your research.

thanks, it was helpful.

Thanks Derek for doing such a wonderful job of helping. Blessings Bro!

Concise and applicable, nice! what a great help. I am now doing a literature review section on my thesis, I used to waste so much time on reading articles that is not relevant back and forth.

Thank for your great help!

Hi Derek, i am busy with my research literature. I submited my 1st draft but it was way irrelevant as per comments made by my supervisor… i gave myself time to find out where i diverted until i lesson to some of your videos. As we speak now, i am starting following the guidelines and i feel confident that i am on the right track now. Thanks a lot my brother

You’re most welcome 🙂

I can’t explain my mood when I realised I had to study more than 40 articles about my study field. It was indeed a game-changer. Thank you very much, Derek. Also, Kardashian was the best example that can be used for this situation :)))

Thank you for posting this. It truly takes a load off! I’m new to Doctoral research and peer review study and “Overwhelmed” doesn’t quite sum up how I felt. This is a tremendous help!

Thank you for the advice. Question, how do one keep count of all the articles considered from starting point to narrowed down. Manually, or is there another way?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

• What Is A Literature Review (In A Dissertation Or Thesis) - Grad Coach - […] first step of any literature review is to hunt down and read through the existing research that’s relevant to your research…

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

info This is a space for the teal alert bar.

notifications This is a space for the yellow alert bar.

Research Process

• Brainstorming
• Explore Google This link opens in a new window
• Explore Web Resources
• Explore Background Information
• Explore Books
• Explore Scholarly Articles
• Narrowing a Topic
• Primary and Secondary Resources
• Academic, Popular & Trade Publications
• Scholarly and Peer-Reviewed Journals
• Grey Literature
• Clinical Trials
• Evidence Based Treatment
• Scholarly Research
• Database Research Log
• Search Limits
• Keyword Searching
• Boolean Operators
• Phrase Searching
• Truncation & Wildcard Symbols
• Proximity Searching
• Field Codes
• Subject Terms and Database Thesauri

Reading a Scientific Article

• Website Evaluation
• Article Keywords and Subject Terms
• Cited References
• Citing Articles
• Related Results
• Search Within Publication
• Database Alerts & RSS Feeds
• Personal Database Accounts
• Persistent URLs
• Literature Gap and Future Research
• Web of Knowledge
• Annual Reviews
• Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses
• Finding Seminal Works
• Exhausting the Literature
• Finding Dissertations
• Researching Theoretical Frameworks
• Research Methodology & Design
• Tests and Measurements
• Organizing Research & Citations This link opens in a new window
• Scholarly Publication
• Learn the Library This link opens in a new window

Library Tutorial

• Reading a Scholarly Article Tutorial This interactive tutorial provides practice reading a scholarly or scientific article.

Additional Resources

• Anatomy of a Scholarly Article
• How to Read (and Understand) a Social Science Journal Article
• How to Read a Scientific Paper
• How to Read a Scientific Paper Interactive Tutorial
• How to Read Scientific Literature (YouTube Video)

General Dictionaries

• The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
• The American Heritage Student Science Dictionary
• The Chambers Dictionary
• Dictionary.com
• The Free Dictionary
• Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary
• Merriam-Webster Online
• The Penguin English Dictionary
• The Science Dictionary

Attempting to read a scientific or scholarly research article for the first time may seem overwhelming and confusing. This guide details how to read a scientific article step-by-step. First, you should not approach a scientific article like a textbook— reading from beginning to end of the chapter or book without pause for reflection or criticism. Additionally, it is highly recommended that you highlight and take notes as you move through the article. Taking notes will keep you focused on the task at hand and help you work towards comprehension of the entire article.

• Skim the article. This should only take you a few minutes. You are not trying to comprehend the entire article at this point, but just get a basic overview. You don’t have to read in order; the discussion/conclusions will help you to determine if the article is relevant to your research. You might then continue on to the Introduction. Pay attention to the structure of the article, headings, and figures.  
• Grasp the vocabulary. Begin to go through the article and highlight words and phrases you do not understand. Some words or phrases you may be able to get an understanding from the context in which it is used, but for others you may need the assistance of a medical or scientific dictionary. Subject-specific dictionaries available through our Library databases and online are listed below.  
• The abstract gives a quick overview of the article. It will usually contain four pieces of information: purpose or rationale of study (why they did it); methodology (how they did it); results (what they found); conclusion (what it means). Begin by reading the abstract to make sure this is what you are looking for and that it will be worth your time and effort.   
• The introduction gives background information about the topic and sets out specific questions to be addressed by the authors. You can skim through the introduction if you are already familiar with the paper’s topic.  
• The methods section gives technical details of how the experiments were carried out and serves as a “how-to” manual if you wanted to replicate the same experiments as the authors. This is another section you may want to only skim unless you wish to identify the methods used by the researchers or if you intend to replicate the research yourself.  
• The results are the meat of the scientific article and contain all of the data from the experiments. You should spend time looking at all the graphs, pictures, and tables as these figures will contain most of the data.  
• Lastly, the discussion is the authors’ opportunity to give their opinions. Keep in mind that the discussions are the authors’ interpretations and not necessarily facts. It is still a good place for you to get ideas about what kind of research questions are still unanswered in the field and what types of questions you might want your own research project to tackle. (See the Future Research Section of the Research Process for more information).  
•   Read the bibliography/references section. Reading the references or works cited may lead you to other useful resources. You might also get a better understanding of the basic terminology, main concepts, major researchers, and basic terminology in the area you are researching.  
• Have I taken time to understand all the terminology?
• Am I spending too much time on the less important parts of this article?
• Do I have any reason to question the credibility of this research?
• What specific problem does the research address and why is it important?
• How do these results relate to my research interests or to other works which I have read?  
• Read the article a second time in chronological order. Reading the article a second time will reinforce your overall understanding. You may even start to make connections to other articles that you have read on this topic.

Reading a Scholarly Article Workshop

This workshop presents effective techniques for reading and understanding a scholarly article, as well as locating definitions related to your research topic.

Subject-Specific Dictionaries

• Health Sciences
• Marriage & Family Science
• Research Methods
• Social Work

Was this resource helpful?

• << Previous: Subject Terms and Database Thesauri
• Next: Evaluating Information >>
• Last Updated: Apr 14, 2024 12:14 PM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/researchprocess

© Copyright 2024 National University. All Rights Reserved.

Privacy Policy | Consumer Information

How to Read a Research Article: A Kind Guide for Non-Scientists

Posted January 11, 2023

By Boris Litvin

I. “ How Do You Even Read This?! ”

At last—you found it . A research article that, at first glance, can precisely answer your questions. After Googling for hours and swimming through comment sections, anecdotes, videos, and the occasional heavy debate, you’ve come across what looks like the Holy Grail. Fifteen pages whose beginning can be traced to years ago, when a team of top experts at a top university recruited countless participants who gave their time for a scientific study. Pages written by these top experts over the course of months, which were then reviewed by a panel of other top experts over the course of more months, and which you now feast your eyes upon. The title is confident. The reference section has dozens of entries. There are plenty of graphs and tables.

With a smile, you scroll through the article for a minute…and close the webpage with resignation. “ How do you even read this?! ”

Whether you’re looking for quality research about OCD, related disorders, or anything else in psychology—and whether it’s for yourself, a loved one, or a therapist—this feeling of confusion and giving up is sadly too common. You found a research article that’s relevant to your question, but as you read it, you may soon realize that this was not written with you in mind. 

Unfortunately, research articles are written for scientists by other scientists in peer-reviewed reputable journals . These are not texts like novels, blog posts, or even articles in scientific magazines and websites. There is a different language, full of specific terminology, parentheses, and symbols. This lingo is used by scientists to quickly communicate relevant information and allow them to test the study on their own, challenge or agree with the findings, and use it to further understanding of OCD and related disorders in their own way. However, these scientists have spent years, if not decades, in academia, where understanding this lingo was taught and practiced from the start. Apart from the terminology, there are numbers, statistics, and Greek letters ( α , anyone?), which serve as the backbone of psychological research. These numbers and stats are ultimately the roots of this language, and all that terminology and formal verbiage become heavy flourishes that interpret these. What?! 

To non-scientists, this is obviously frustrating. You may ask, “If these articles and studies are supposed to lead to a better understanding of OCD (or any psychological disorder), and inform treatment, and so on—shouldn’t they be accessible to all of us? Shouldn’t everyone be able to glance at them and gauge which course of action is best to treat their symptoms, or understand how a specific subtype of OCD works?” You may also ask, “If words in these articles are meant to interpret numbers and symbols and tests, why not just use simpler language? Statistics are complicated as it is!”

Scientists across all disciplines learn their lingo from early on; over time, it becomes internalized through reading tons of these articles and eventually writing their own. But all have found themselves in your shoes—as a student in an intro course receiving a 15-page print-out for homework (“I can definitely read this last minute…”) and then going into full-blown panic when they realize this reads like nothing they’ve seen before (“I finished War & Peace in 10th grade! Why is this so dense?!). Over time, they learn the tricks of the trade—what terminology means, what a Greek letter stands for, what numbers represent. Most importantly, they learn how to actually read a research paper—how to find what they need without reading the whole thing in linear order in a matter of minutes.

I started out as an overwhelmed student in an intro course, worked in labs, and contributed to a few research papers of my own. While I understand the terminology and am quite comfortable with reading a series of articles, I’m also mindful that most people can’t do that and would have to give up a solid amount of time by practicing this skill, going to classes, working as a researcher, and so on. So I’m writing this for anyone who wants to learn and know how to read a research article like the experts do. But before we dive in, please understand that this will require practice and comfort with some frustration before you can quickly skim these texts like an academic. It’s just like building a muscle or practicing a hobby.

II.  The Structure of a Research Article

A research article can be about a comparison of ERP vs. ACT, how a cluster of neurons interact because of a specific chromosome, a summary of interviews with patients, or any other topic—but the structure of each paper is generally the same. 

• The abstract

A summary of the entire paper in about 250-500 words that ideally points out the purpose of the study, what the study found, and what the results mean. 5-7 keywords are listed at the end that tell the reader the topic of the paper.

• The introduction

A text that explains the previous research that has been done on the topic of the paper, which finishes with a paragraph or two explaining the purpose of the present study. (Sometimes the “Purpose of the Study” will be its own section.) 

Introductions are full of terminology and references, and are usually the most verbose parts. You’ll see a lot of parentheses with names and years (e.g. Smith & Jones, 2023). These are citations and tell the reader whose study is being referenced. 

All research needs to stand on prior research, theories, and evidence, and is typically a new look into something or a reassessment of a prior study. The introduction is also called a “literature review” because it looks at what has been done before and gives credit to the authors. It’s super important—a scientist may think they’ve come up with a completely new idea, but may find that someone else already had that and wrote about it. Credit must be given where it’s due.

The “Purpose of the Study” at the end (or the last few paragraphs) will state what the current study is trying to achieve. It will present a hypothesis (an “educated guess” based on prior research), how it will test this hypothesis, and why this study is important.

• Participants

A description of the sample—people whose characteristics and responses were used to carry out the study. The participants section tells the reader who the “experimental group” is: the people chosen for the study, and how and why they were chosen (e.g. diagnoses, age). It will also usually describe a “control group” (a group of people who do not have a particular diagnosis or similar metric, whose responses will act as a comparison to the “experimental group”). This section will usually reference a table that describes demographic characteristics in terms of full numbers and/or percentages.

A description of the tools used to carry out the study with the participants. Here, tools can range from the complicated machinery used to carry out brain scans to the simple questionnaires that scientists use to ask participants about their symptoms, thoughts, and feelings and even to the location of where the study took place (a laboratory vs. somewhere else). The methods section will also describe the statistical tests used to analyze the data that is gathered using these tools. 

This section is super important for scientists. It serves as an instruction manual of sorts for how to conduct the study, and would ideally allow other researchers who wish to copy the experiment in the future to do so. For the non-scientist, keep in mind that the methods section is very technical by design.

A description of results based on the analyses of data gathered from testing participants.

Although usually shorter than the others, this section is by far the most technical and complicated to understand for non-scientists. It’s common to see numbers, Greek letters, abbreviations, and other “lingo” here. Most tables and figures (charts and graphs) in an article are tied to the results section, and are also technical. 

Although each paper has its own approaches, you will see a few common phrases throughout. Here are a few that are the “backbone” of each paper, without getting into too much “stats class” detail:

• (Statistically) Significant: The results of the analysis show that there is a connection to something that is not attributable to chance or randomness.
• (Statistically) Nonsignificant: The results of the analysis show that there is a higher likelihood of the results being attributed to chance or randomness, and not necessarily to the treatment, intervention, or interplay between the things studied.
• α : The Greek letter alpha ( α ) stands for significance level, a metric used as a threshold for whether the analysis is significant or not. α is usually set at .05, .01, or .001, depending on the needs of the study. These numbers are also percentages—0.05 here means that there is a 5% risk of the study showing that the results are correct when they’re actually not, 0.01 means a 1% risk, and so on.
• p : The letter p stands for probability, and the number that follows either an equals sign (=), a greater-than sign (>), or a less-than sign (<) is the probability number that is compared to the α value set by the researchers. If a p value is less than α set at 0.05, this means that the result is statistically significant and is not attributed to chance. If it is greater than the α value, the result is not statistically significant.

—Think of α as a threshold and p as the number you compare to the threshold.—

Let’s look at this with an example. “Treatment A is statistically significant at reducing symptom X, p =.03, α <.05.” In this study, with the group of participants who were tested at the location where this study took place, Treatment A reduced symptom X at a solid enough level where the results can be soundly not attributed to chance or randomness, because the p value was less than the α value. 

The first part of that sentence is emphasized for a reason: this study can be done again by the same set of researchers or by a different group, and find that Treatment A actually doesn’t work so well (or works even better). As authoritative and confident a results section can look, all results should be read with the context of who the study participants were, where the study took place, and other important circumstances.

A less technical description of the results, usually written without many numbers and statistics. The discussion section shows in plain(er) language whether the results of the study supported the hypothesis outlined in the introduction, and why these results are important. A good discussion should also show what the researchers believed to be the strengths of their study (it’s good to do something innovative), as well as admit to limitations and weaknesses that could be addressed in future research (no study is perfect, and scientific humility goes a long way). The final paragraphs can suggest what future research on this topic can do, and neatly summarize the study (sometimes this can be a separate “Conclusion” section).

III.  How to Read a Research Article and Get What You Need

With the descriptions of each section in mind, you’ll see that this is nothing like reading a novel, a magazine, or a web article. Texts and articles like that usually follow a pattern that requires reading from start to finish, or else there will be much confusion.

While a research article can certainly be read from start to finish (and it is encouraged to do so when trying to understand a topic at an expert level), it doesn’t have to be. In fact, most researchers don’t have time to read multiple studies word-for-word, and the structure of research articles allows them to jump around an article and get the information they need quickly and efficiently. Everyone has their own way of quickly tearing apart an article in 10 minutes, and I’d like to give you a technique which works for me if I want to casually understand a study. (For scientific purposes, I definitely read them in more detail.)

• Read the abstract first. It’s a short summary of the whole study, and you’ll go into it with a general idea of what’s happening.
• Read the “Purpose of the Study” or the last paragraphs of the introduction. With the abstract in mind, you’ll now understand in more depth what the study is about and trying to achieve here.
• Read the “Conclusion” or the last paragraphs of the discussion. Yes, skipping all the way to the end is allowed—now you’ll know the basics of what the study found and if more research is needed.
• Briefly read the “Discussion” in full. This will give more detail to what you just read, will explain why the study found what it found, and its strengths and limitations.
• Skim the “Participants”. Look for demographics, the location of the study, how long it took, and so on—now you’ll understand in what kind of experimental group these results were found.
• Skim the “Methods”. It’s technical; just pay attention to what kind of tests were run and whether they’re something standard in psychology or something new.
• Skim the “Results”. If you can understand the statistics and read the charts, great! If not, follow the “common phrases” I outlined above and skim.
• Skim the “Introduction”. By this point, you’ll already have a general idea of what the study’s purpose was, what the results found, and whether this topic needs further research. But if you’re interested in seeing how the study came to be based on prior research articles, then skim the “Introduction”. You’ll also find some definitions for what certain terms mean (and if not, you can look them up at a reputable source).

This should take about 10 minutes and give you a casual but solid understanding of what, when, where, why, and how a group of scientists did what they did.

IV.  Some Final Words of Advice

I hope that the last sections made it easier to read a research article and know how to understand it. Keep practicing these skills by reading more articles, especially challenging ones. Over time, you’ll see that you will follow along with greater ease and (dare I say it?) enjoy reading them. 

Before this ends, here are a few final words of advice.

1.  You may realize it’s hard to fully trust statistics, especially when they are difficult to understand. First, a good research article is published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, meaning that groups of other scientists rigorously review an article before it is published. These reviewers pay special attention to the statistics and results, as publishing correct data is essential for good and flourishing science. If an article made it to the point of being published, there is a high chance that you can trust the statistics.

Also, being healthily skeptical and asking questions about statistics—or anything else—is the mark of a scientist. No scientist knows absolutely everything, and always asks questions, reaches out to fellow scientists, and reads and watches relevant content. Ask questions and be curious!

2.  Don’t worry if you don’t understand everything (something that I recognize is a struggle for some folks with OCD). No one understands everything—not even top scientists. They ask questions all the time, and know that having a definitive answer is usually impossible when it comes to psychology.

3.  Most things in psychological research are approximations, based on the sample that was chosen, where the study was conducted, and the strengths and limitations of a particular approach. The same framework can lead to different results with different samples and locations—and all of those results are approximations. By their nature, social sciences—those that deal with people—are more dynamic and have more nuance than the hard sciences (physics, chemistry, and biology). Nothing is perfect here and there is always more work to be done in OCD and related disorders research; it’s perfectly fine to take things with a grain of salt.

4.  Google and YouTube are your friends—if you know how to use them properly. If you have questions, you can definitely search things up, as long as you know what you’re searching for and where to look. If you want to understand statistics in more depth, you can check out channels like CrashCourse for easy-to-follow explanations and Khan Academy for detailed lessons.

5.  You can reach out to researchers directly if you have questions. Though busy, they’re usually quite happy to talk about their studies and point you in the right direction! And you can always email us at [email protected] or [email protected] as well!

Thank you for reading this! I’ll follow up with a second part that will get more into the technical aspects of research articles, but hope that this will be enough for a start. In the meantime, please visit https://iocdf.org/research/ to learn more about research at the IOCDF, the studies we have funded, and our 2023 Research Grant Program!

B oris Litvin is the IOCDF Research Communications Specialist.

This is SUCH a fantastic and necessary guide/post, for people in the community and beyond! Thank you so much for taking the time to create this, Boris & the IOCDF. Research is power, and should be accessible to not just those in the field – Can’t wait for the next post too!

Thank you so much for the kind words, Uma! Working on part II 🙂

Boris—this is brilliant. You explored such an important topic—relevant to academicians and laypeople alike—and wrote a piece helping to close the gap between what occurs in academia and what occurs “in the real world”. Congratulations!

Thank you very much, David!!!

Thank you for sharing this. I posted it in our OCD Research, Education and Support Group.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

borislitvin

Recent Posts

• The Time OCD came to visit…and didn’t leave… 
• Faith and OCD: Discussion and Enlightenment:  Why you should attend the Faith and OCD Conference
• Self-Acceptance: A Repeated Practice
• Am I a Bad Person?
• My Life with OCD and Social Anxiety Disorder

Your gift has the power to change the life of someone living with OCD!

• USU Library

How to Read Research Articles: Home

How to read research articles.

Scholarly articles can be intimidating, but if you understand the different sections and what you can find within each section, its a lot easier! Watch this short video to get some tips.

Steps for Reading Research Articles

1.  Read the abstract:  This will allow you to get a framework of the article before you dive into it. Understanding the purpose of the article will help guide you as you read it. 

2.  Skim the entire article:  Read the article all the way through without taking notes and get the gist of the article. Get familiar with the topic. 

3. Take notes:  Read the article again - this time more focused and take notes. Highlight key points, jot down any questions.

4. Relevancy?  Jot down anything that stands out as relevant to you and why. This will help you later if you need to utilize this information in a report, etc.

5.  Identify & summarize key info:  What are the key findings? How did they prove this? Did they prove this? Were there limitations? Are there lingering questions? Implications for further research?

6.  Check the sources:  Who does the author cite? Are they relevant to your topic? You can look up the articles' citations and utilize the research as well.

Anatomy of a Research Article

Understanding the different sections of a research article is also helpful. 

Abstract:  General overview of the purpose and findings.

Introduction:  Rationale and introduction to the study's hypothesis.

Methods:  How data was gathered and tested.

Results:  What was found from the testing. 

Discussion:  Implications from the results and areas for further research.

Conclusion:  Summary of the article and discussion of limitations. 

References:  A list of all the other research cited throughout the work.

• Last Updated: Sep 12, 2022 4:54 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usu.edu/research_articles

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts

Research articles

Structures of human γδ t cell receptor–cd3 complex.

• Bangdong Huang

High-performance fibre battery with polymer gel electrolyte

A fibre lithium-ion battery that can potentially be woven into textiles shows enhanced battery performance and safety compared with liquid electrolytes.

• Haibo Jiang
• Huisheng Peng

Discovery of WRN inhibitor HRO761 with synthetic lethality in MSI cancers

HRO761 is a potent, selective, allosteric WRN inhibitor that binds at the interface of the D1 and D2 helicase domains, locking WRN in an inactive conformation.

• Stephane Ferretti
• Jacques Hamon
• Marta Cortés-Cros

Antisense oligonucleotide therapeutic approach for Timothy syndrome

Antisense oligonucleotides effectively decrease the inclusion of exon  8A of CACNA1C in human cells both in vitro and in rodents transplanted with human brain organoids, and a single intrathecal administration rescued both calcium changes and in vivo dendrite morphology of patient neurons.

• Xiaoyu Chen
• Fikri Birey
• Sergiu P. Pașca

Multi-project wafers for flexible thin-film electronics by independent foundries

The iconic 6502 microprocessor designed in two key thin-film transistor technologies by independent foundries is used to demonstrate and expand the multi-project wafer approach for flexible electronics.

• Hikmet Çeliker
• Wim Dehaene

Growth of diamond in liquid metal at 1 atm pressure

Diamond crystals and polycrystalline diamond films can be grown using liquid metal at standard pressure and high temperature instead of conventional high pressure and high temperature.

• Rodney S. Ruoff

PGE 2 limits effector expansion of tumour-infiltrating stem-like CD8 + T cells

Tumour-derived prostaglandin E 2 , signaling through its receptors EP 2 and EP 4 , is shown to restrain the responses of tumour-infiltrating stem-like TCF1 + CD8 + T lymphocytes, and modulation of T cell EP 2 and EP 4 can restore anticancer immunity.

• Sebastian B. Lacher
• Janina Dörr
• Jan P. Böttcher

A high-density and high-confinement tokamak plasma regime for fusion energy

A stable tokamak plasma has been demonstrated with a high plasma density and a high energy confinement quality, both of which are simultaneously important for fusion reactors.

• A. M. Garofalo
• J. M. Hanson

Single-cell analysis reveals context-dependent, cell-level selection of mtDNA

A new method for tracking single-cell heteroplasmy, called SCI-LITE, is combined with mitochondrial DNA base editing to reveal principles of heteroplasmy dynamics in dividing cells.

• Anna V. Kotrys
• Timothy J. Durham
• Vamsi K. Mootha

Chemoproteomic discovery of a covalent allosteric inhibitor of WRN helicase

VVD-133214, a clinical-stage, covalent allosteric inhibitor of the helicase WRN, was well tolerated in mice and led to robust tumour regression in multiple microsatellite-instability-high colorectal cancer cell lines and patient-derived xenograft models.

• Kristen A. Baltgalvis
• Kelsey N. Lamb
• Todd M. Kinsella

A magnetar giant flare in the nearby starburst galaxy M82

We report observations of GRB 231115A, positionally coincident with the starburst galaxy M82, that unambiguously qualify this burst as a giant flare from a magnetar, which is a rare explosive event releasing gamma rays.

• Sandro Mereghetti
• Michela Rigoselli
• Pietro Ubertini

Whole-cortex in situ sequencing reveals input-dependent area identity

BARseq interrogates the expression of 104 cell-type marker genes in 10.3 million cells over nine mouse forebrain hemispheres to reveal the role of peripheral inputs on cortical area development.

• Xiaoyin Chen
• Stephan Fischer
• Anthony M. Zador

Periportal macrophages protect against commensal-driven liver inflammation

A subset of Macro-positive macrophages is identified to have immunosuppressive functions in the periportal vein zones of the liver to mediate excessive inflammation, and their effects depend on commensal gut bacteria.

• Yu Miyamoto
• Junichi Kikuta
• Masaru Ishii

High carrier mobility along the [111] orientation in Cu 2 O photoelectrodes

A study introduces a novel method to grow single-crystal Cu 2 O thin films with selected crystal orientations, highlighting enhanced bulk carrier mobility and carrier diffusion length along the [111] direction that yields Cu 2 O photocathodes with improved performance.

• Linfeng Pan
• Samuel D. Stranks

Probing entanglement in a 2D hard-core Bose–Hubbard lattice

By emulating a 2D hard-core Bose–Hubbard lattice using a controllable 4 × 4 array of superconducting qubits, volume-law entanglement scaling as well as area-law scaling at different locations in the energy spectrum are observed.

• Amir H. Karamlou
• Ilan T. Rosen
• William D. Oliver

One-dimensional proximity superconductivity in the quantum Hall regime

We show that domain walls in minimally twisted bilayer graphene support exceptionally robust proximity superconductivity in the quantum Hall regime.

• Julien Barrier

Transient loss of Polycomb components induces an epigenetic cancer fate

A transient perturbation of transcriptional silencing mediated by Polycomb proteins is sufficient to induce an epigenetic cancer cell fate in Drosophila in the absence of driver mutations.

• V. Loubiere

Spatiotemporally resolved colorectal oncogenesis in mini-colons ex vivo

Topobiologically complex mini-colons—which enable the faithful in vitro recapitulation of colorectal cancer tumorigenesis and its environmental determinants—offer the possibility to reduce animal use in a wide range of experimental applications.

• L. Francisco Lorenzo-Martín
• Tania Hübscher
• Matthias P. Lutolf

Valleytronics in bulk MoS 2 with a topologic optical field

We develop an optical method that can set and read the state of electrons in the valley polarization of bulk transition metal dichalcogenide semiconductors, with potential utility as digital storage at quantum coherent timescales and application in quantum computing.

• Igor Tyulnev
• Álvaro Jiménez-Galán
• Jens Biegert

Regioselective hydroformylation of propene catalysed by rhodium-zeolite

Rhodium catalysts confined in zeolite pores exhibit high regioselectivity in the hydroformylation process of propene to high-value n -butanal, surpassing the performance of all heterogeneous and most homogeneous catalysts developed so far.

• Xiangjie Zhang

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Explore millions of high-quality primary sources and images from around the world, including artworks, maps, photographs, and more.

Explore migration issues through a variety of media types

• Part of The Streets are Talking: Public Forms of Creative Expression from Around the World
• Part of The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Winter 2020)
• Part of Cato Institute (Aug. 3, 2021)
• Part of University of California Press
• Part of Open: Smithsonian National Museum of African American History & Culture
• Part of Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Winter 2012)
• Part of R Street Institute (Nov. 1, 2020)
• Part of Leuven University Press
• Part of UN Secretary-General Papers: Ban Ki-moon (2007-2016)
• Part of Perspectives on Terrorism, Vol. 12, No. 4 (August 2018)
• Part of Leveraging Lives: Serbia and Illegal Tunisian Migration to Europe, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Mar. 1, 2023)
• Part of UCL Press

Harness the power of visual materials—explore more than 3 million images now on JSTOR.

Enhance your scholarly research with underground newspapers, magazines, and journals.

Explore collections in the arts, sciences, and literature from the world’s leading museums, archives, and scholars.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

How the Science of Reading Informs 21st‐Century Education

The science of reading should be informed by an evolving evidence base built upon the scientific method. Decades of basic research and randomized controlled trials of interventions and instructional routines have formed a substantial evidence base to guide best practices in reading instruction, reading intervention, and the early identification of at-risk readers. The recent resurfacing of questions about what constitutes the science of reading is leading to misinformation in the public space that may be viewed by educational stakeholders as merely differences of opinion among scientists. Our goals in this paper are to revisit the science of reading through an epistemological lens to clarify what constitutes evidence in the science of reading and to offer a critical evaluation of the evidence provided by the science of reading. To this end, we summarize those things that we believe have compelling evidence, promising evidence, or a lack of compelling evidence. We conclude with a discussion of areas of focus that we believe will advance the science of reading to meet the needs of all children in the 21st century.

For more than 100 years, the question of how best to teach children to read has been debated in what has been termed the “reading wars”. The debate cyclically fades into the background only to reemerge, often with the same points of conflict. We believe that this cycle is not helpful for promoting the best outcomes for children’s educational success. Our goal in this paper is to make an honest and critical appraisal of the science of reading, defining what it is, how we build a case for evidence, summarizing those things for which the science of reading has provided unequivocal answers, providing a discussion of things we do not know but that may have been “oversold,” identifying areas for which evidence is promising but not yet compelling, and thinking ahead about how the science of reading can better serve all stakeholders in children’s educational achievements.

At its core, scientific inquiry is the same in all fields. Scientific research, whether in education, physics, anthropology, molecular biology, or economics, is a continual process of rigorous reasoning supported by a dynamic interplay among methods, theories, and findings. It builds understandings in the form of models or theories that can be tested. Advances in scientific knowledge are achieved by the self-regulating norms of the scientific community over time, not, as sometimes believed, by the mechanistic application of a particular scientific method to a static set of questions (National Research Council, 2002, p. 2).

What is the Science of Reading and Why are we Still Debating it?

The “science of reading” is a phrase representing the accumulated knowledge about reading, reading development, and best practices for reading instruction obtained by the use of the scientific method. We recognize that the accrual of scientific knowledge related to reading is ever evolving, at times circuitous, and not without controversy. Nonetheless, the knowledge base on the science of reading is vast. In the last decade alone, over 14,000 peer-reviewed articles have been published in journals that included the keyword “reading” based on a PsycINFO search. Although many of these studies likely focused on a sliver of the reading process individually, collectively, research studies with a focus on reading have yielded a substantial knowledge base of stable findings based on the science of reading. Taken together, the science of reading helps a diverse set of educational shareholders across institutions (e.g., preschools, schools, universities), communities, and families to make informed choices about how to effectively promote literacy skills that foster healthy and productive lives ( DeWalt & Hink, 2009 ; Rayner et al., 2001 ).

An interesting question concerning the science of reading is “Why is there a debate surrounding the science of reading?” Although there are certainly disputes within the scientific community regarding best practices and new areas of research inquiry, most of the current debate seems to settle upon what constitutes scientific evidence, how much value we should place on scientific evidence as opposed to other forms of knowledge, and how preservice teachers should be instructed to teach reading ( Brady, 2020 ). The current disagreement in what constitutes the scientific evidence of reading (e.g., Calkins, 2020 ) is not new. During the last round of the “reading wars” in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s these same issues were discussed and debated. Much of the debate focused on conflicting views in epistemology between constructivists and positivists on the basic mechanisms associated with reading development. Constructivists, such as Goodman (1967) and Smith (1971) , believed that reading was a “natural act” akin to learning language and thus emphasized giving children the opportunity to discover meaning through experiences in a literacy-rich environment. In contrast, positivists, such as Chall (1967) and Flesch (1955) , made strong distinctions between innate language learning and the effortful learning required to acquire reading skills. Positivists argued for explicit instruction to help foster understanding of how the written code mapped onto language, whereas constructivists encouraged children to engage in a “psycholinguistic guessing game” in which readers use their graphic, semantic, and syntactic knowledge (known as the three cuing system) to guess the meaning of a printed word.

Research clearly indicates that skilled reading involves the consolidation of orthographic and phonological word forms ( Dehene, 2011 ). Work in cognitive neuroscience indicates that a small region of the left ventral visual cortex becomes specialized for this purpose. As children learn to read, they recruit neurons from a small region of the left ventral visual cortex within the left occipitotemporal cortex region (i.e., visual word form area) that are tuned to language-dependent parameters through connectivity to perisylvian language areas ( Dehaene-Lambertz et al., 2018 ). This provides an efficient circuit for grapheme-phoneme conversion and lexical access allowing efficient word-reading skills to develop. These studies provide direct evidence for how teaching alters the human brain by repurposing some visual regions toward the shapes of letters, suggesting that cultural inventions, such as written language, modify evolutionarily older brain regions. Furthermore, studies suggest that instruction focusing on the link between orthography and phonology promote this brain reorganization (e.g., Dehaene, 2011 ). Yet, arguments between philosophical constructivists and philosophical positivists on what constitutes the science of reading and how it informs instruction remain active today (e.g., Castles et al., 2018 ). In a recent interview with Emily Hanford, Ken Goodman defended his advocacy for the three cuing system saying that the three-cueing theory is based on years of observational research. In his view, three cueing is perfectly valid, drawn from a different kind of evidence than what scientists collect in their lab and later he stated that “my science is different” ( Hanford, 2019 ).

As scientists at the Florida Center for Reading Research, we are often frustrated when what we view to be the empirically supported evidence base about the reading process are distorted or denied in communications directed to the public and to teachers. However, Stanovich (2003) posited that “in many cases, the facts are secondary—what is being denied are the styles of reasoning that gave rise to the facts; what is being denied is closer to a worldview than an empirical finding. Many of these styles are implicit; we are not conscious of them as explicit rules of behavior” (pp. 106-107). Stanovich proposed five different dimensions that represent “styles” of generating knowledge about reading. For our purposes, here, we focus on the first dimension: the correspondence versus coherence theory of truth. It hits at the heart of how people believe something to be true. People who believe that a real world exists independent of their beliefs, and that interrogating this world using rigorous principles to gain knowledge is a fruitful activity are said to subscribe to the correspondence theory of truth. In contrast, those who subscribe to the coherence theory of truth believe that something is “true” if the beliefs about something fit together in a logical way. In essence, something is true if it makes sense.

Stanovich believed these differing truth systems might lie at the heart of the disagreements surrounding the science of reading. One side shouting, “Look at this mountain of evidence! How can you not believe it?” and the other side shouting, “It doesn’t make sense! It doesn’t match up with our experiences! Why should we value your knowledge above our own?!” By approaching the science of reading from the perspective of the correspondence theory of truth, we consider how compelling evidence can be generated, what we believe is the compelling evidence, what we think lacks evidence, and what we think is promising evidence.

How We Build a Case for Compelling Evidence

Research is the means by which we acquire and understand knowledge about the world ( Dane, 1990 ) to create scientific principles. Relatively few scientists would argue with the importance of using research evidence to support a principle or to make claims about reading development and the quality of reading instruction. Where significant divergence often occurs is in response to policy statements that categorize research claims and instructional strategies into those with greater or lesser levels of evidence. This divergence is typically rooted in applied epistemology, which can be understood as the study of whether the means by which we study evidence are themselves well designed to lead to valid conclusions. Researchers often frame the science of reading from divergent applied epistemological perspectives. Thus, two scientists who approach the science of reading with different epistemologies will both suggest that they have principled understandings and explanations for how children learn to read; yet, the means by which those understandings and explanations were derived are often distinct.

The correspondence and coherence theories of truth described above are examples of explanations from contrasting epistemological perspectives. Consistent with these perspectives, researchers approaching the science of reading using a correspondence theory typically prioritize deductive methods, which embed hypothesis testing, precise operationalization of constructs, and efforts to decouple the researchers’ beliefs from their interpretation and generalization of empirical evidence. Researchers approaching the science of reading using a coherence theory of truth typically prioritize more inductive methods, such as phenomenological, ethnographic, and grounded theory approaches that embed focus on the meaning and understanding that comes through a person’s lived experience and where the scientist’s own observations shape meaning and principles (e.g., Israel & Duffy, 2014 ).

When the National Research Council published Scientific Research in Education (2002), a significant amount of criticism levied against the report boiled down to differences in epistemological perspectives. Yet, these genuine contrasts can often obscure contributions to the science of reading that derive from multiple applied epistemologies. Observational research, using both inductive (e.g., case studies) and deductive (e.g., correlational studies) approaches, substantively informs the development of theories and of novel instructional approaches (e.g., Scruggs et al., 2007 ). Public health research offers a useful parallel. As it would be unethical to establish a causal link from smoking cigarettes to lung cancer through a randomized controlled trial, that field instead used well-designed observational studies to derive claims and principles. These findings then informed later stages in the broader program of research, including randomized controlled trials of interventions for smoking cessation.

In the science of reading, principles and instructional strategies should indeed capitalize on a program of research inclusive of multiple methodologies. Yet, as the public health domain ultimately takes direction from the efficacy of smoking cessation programs, so too must the science of reading take direction from theoretically informed and well-designed experimental and quasi-experimental studies of promising strategies when the intention is to evaluate instructional practices. The use of experimental (i.e., randomized trials) and quasi-experimental (e.g., regression discontinuity, propensity score matching, interrupted time series) designs, in which an intervention is competed against counterfactual conditions, such as typical practice or alternative interventions, provides the strongest causal credibility regarding which instructional strategies are effective. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) of the Institute of Education Sciences (e.g., What Works Clearinghouse, 2020) and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015 ) are efforts by the US Department of Education to hierarchically characterize the levels of evidence currently available for instructional practices in education. The WWC uses a review framework, developed by methodological and statistical experts, for evaluating the quality and scope of evidence for specific instructional practices based on features of the design, implementation, and analysis of studies. Similarly, ESSA uses four tiers that focus on both the design of the study and the results of the study in which the tiers differ based on the quantity of evidence and quality of evidence supporting an approach. For both WWC and ESSA, quantity of evidence refers to the number of well-designed and well-implemented studies, and quality of evidence is defined by the ability of a study’s methods to allow for alternative explanations of a finding to be ruled out, for which the randomized controlled trial provides the strongest method.

As outlined above, the “science of reading” utilizes multiple research approaches to generate ideas about reading. Ultimately, the highest priority in the science of reading should be the replicable and generalizable knowledge from observational and experimental methods, rooted in a deductive research approach to knowledge generation that is framed in a correspondence theory of truth. In this manner, the accumulated evidence is built on a research foundation by which theories, principles, and hypotheses have been subjected to rigorous empirical scrutiny to determine the degree to which they hold up across variations in samples, measures, and contexts. In the following sections, we summarize issues related to the nature, development, and instruction of reading for which we believe the science of reading either has or has not yielded compelling evidence, identify what we believe are promising areas for which sufficient evidence has not yet accumulated, and suggest a number of areas that we believe will help move the science of reading forward, increasing knowledge and enhancing its positive impacts for a variety of stakeholders.

Compelling Evidence in the Science of Reading

In this section, we focus on a number of findings centrally important for understanding the development and teaching of reading in alphabetic languages. The evidence base provides answers varying across orthographic regularity (e.g., English vs. Spanish), reading subskill (i.e., decoding vs. comprehension), grade range or developmental level (e.g., early childhood, elementary, adolescence), and linguistic diversity (e.g., English language learners, dialect speakers).

There are large differences among alphabetic languages in the rules for how graphemes represent sounds in words (i.e., a language’s orthography). In languages like Spanish and Finnish there is a near one-to-one relation between letters and sounds. The letter-sound coding in these languages is transparent, and they have shallow orthographies. In other languages, most notably English, there is often not a one-to-one relation between letters and sounds. The letter-sound coding in these languages is opaque, and they have deep orthographies. Children must learn which words cannot be decoded based solely on letter-sound correspondence (e.g., two, knight, laugh) and learn to match these irregular spellings to the words they represent. Where a language’s orthography falls on the shallow-deep dimension affects how quickly children develop accurate and fluent word-reading skills ( Ellis et al., 2004 ; Ziegler & Goswami, 2005 ) and how much instruction on foundational reading skills is likely needed. Studies indicate that children learning to read in English are slower to acquire decoding skills (e.g., Caravolas et al., 2013 ). Ziegler et al. (1997) reported that 69% of monosyllabic words in English were consistent in spelling-to-phonology mappings and 31% of the phonology-to-spelling mappings were consistent. Thus, in teaching children to read in English, the “grain size” of phoneme, onset-rime, and whole word matters ( Ziegler & Goswami, 2005 ) and the preservation of morphological regularities in English spelling matters (e.g., vine vs. vineyard ).

Gough and Tunmer’s (1986) “simple view of reading” model, which is supported by a significant amount of research, provides a useful framework for conceptualizing the development of reading skills across time. It also frames the elements for which it is necessary to provide instructional support. The ultimate goal of reading is to extract and construct meaning from text for a purpose. For this task to be successful, however, the reader needs skills in both word decoding and linguistic comprehension. Weaknesses in either area will reduce the capacity to achieve the goal of reading. Decoding skills and linguistic comprehension make independent contributions to the prediction of reading comprehension across diverse populations of readers ( Kershaw & Schatschneider, 2012 ; Sabatini et al., 2010 ; Vellutino, et al., 2007 ). Results of several studies employing measurement strategies that allow modeling of each component as a latent variable indicate that decoding and linguistic comprehension account for almost all of the variance in reading comprehension (e.g., Foorman et al., 2015 ; Lonigan et al., 2018 ). The relative influence of these skill domains, however, changes across development. The importance of decoding skill in explaining variance in reading comprehension decreases across grades whereas the importance of linguistic comprehension increases (e.g., Catts et al., 2005 ; Foorman et al., 2018 ; García & Cain, 2014 ; Lonigan et al., 2018 ). By the time children are in high school linguistic comprehension and reading comprehension essentially form a single dimension (e.g., Foorman et al., 2018 ).

Children’s knowledge of the alphabetic principle (i.e., how letters and sounds connect) and knowledge of the morphophonemic nature of English are necessary to create the high-quality lexical representations essential to accurate and efficient decoding ( Ehri, 2005 ; Perfetti, 2007 ). Acquiring the alphabetic principle is dependent on understanding that words are composed of smaller sounds (i.e., phonological awareness, PA) and alphabet knowledge (AK). Both PA and AK are substantial correlates and predictors of decoding skills (e.g., Wagner & Torgesen, 1987 ; Wagner et al., 1994 ). Prior to formal reading instruction, children are developing PA and AK as well as other early literacy skills that are related to later decoding skills following formal reading instruction ( Lonigan et al., 2009 ; Lonigan et al., 1998 ; National Early Literacy Panel [NELP], 2008 ; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998 ). Reading comprehension takes advantage of the reader’s ability to understand language. In most languages, written language and spoken language have high levels of overlap in their basic structure. Longitudinal studies indicate that linguistic comprehension skills from early childhood predict reading comprehension at the end of elementary school ( Catts et al., 2015 ; Language and Reading Research Consortium & Chiu, 2018 ; Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux, 2010 ; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002 ; Verhoeven & Van Leeuwe, 2008 ). The developmental precursors to skilled reading are present prior to school entry. Consequently, differences between children in the development of these skills forecast later differences in reading skills and are useful for identifying children at risk for reading difficulties.

The science of reading provides numerous clear answers about the type and focus of reading instruction for the subskills of reading, depending on where children are on the continuum of reading development and children’s linguistic backgrounds. Much of this knowledge is summarized in the practice guides produced by the Institute of Education Sciences ( Baker et al., 2014 ; Foorman et al., 2016a ; Gersten et al., 2007 , 2008 ; Kamil et al., 2008 ; Shanahan et al., 2010 ) and in meta-analytic summaries of research (e.g., Berkeley et al., 2012 ; Ehri, Nunes, Stahl et al., 2001 ; Ehri, Nunes, Willows et al., 2001 ; NELP, 2008 ; Therrien, 2004 ; Wanzek et al., 2013 , 2016 ). Whereas the practice guides list several best practices, here we emphasize those practices classified as supported by strong or moderate evidence based on WWC standards.

Since the publication of the Report of the National Reading Panel ( National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000 ) and supported by subsequent research (e.g., Gersten et al., 2017a ; Foorman et al., 2016a ), it is clear that a large evidence base provides strong support for the explicit and systematic instruction of the component and foundational skills of decoding and decoding itself. That is, teaching children phonological awareness and letter knowledge, particularly when combined, results in improved word-decoding skills. Teaching children to decode words using systematic and explicit phonics instruction results in improved word-decoding skills. Such instruction is effective both for monolingual English-speaking children and children whose home language is other than English (i.e., dual-language learners; Baker et al., 2014 ; Gersten et al., 2007 ) as well as children who are having difficulties learning to read or who have an identified reading disability ( Ehri, Nunes, Stahl et al., 2001 ; Gersten et al., 2008 ). Additionally, providing children with frequent opportunities to read connected text supports the development of word-reading accuracy and fluency as well as comprehension skills ( Foorman et al., 2016a ; Therrien, 2004 ).

Similarly, a number of instructional activities to promote the development of reading comprehension have strong or moderate supporting evidence. For younger children, teaching children how to use comprehension strategies and how to utilize the organizational structure of a text to understand, learn, and retain content supports better reading comprehension ( Shanahan et al., 2010 ). For older children, teaching the use of comprehension strategies also enhances reading comprehension ( Kamil et al., 2008 ) as does explicit instruction in key vocabulary, providing opportunities for extended discussion of texts, and providing instruction on foundational reading skills when children lack these skills; such instructional approaches are also effective for children with significant reading difficulties ( Berkeley et al., 2012 ; Kamil et al., 2008 ).

Lack of Compelling Evidence in the Science of Reading

In the above section, practices were highlighted that have sufficient evidence to warrant their widespread use. In this section, we address reading practices for which there is a lack of compelling evidence. Some practices have simply not yet been scientifically evaluated. Other practices have been evaluated, but either the evidence does not support their use based on the generalizability of the results or the studies in which they were evaluated were not of sufficient quality to meet a minimal standard of evidence (e.g., WWC standards). Although we lack sufficient space to present a comprehensive list of practices that do not have compelling evidence, we provide examples of practices that are commonplace and vary in the degree to which they have been scientifically studied.

Evidence-based decision making regarding effective literacy programs and practices for classroom use can be difficult. Often, there is no evidence of effectiveness for a program or the evidence is of poor quality. For instance, of the five most popular reading programs used nationwide (i.e., Units of Study for Teaching Reading, Journeys, Into Reading, Leveled Literacy Intervention and Reading Recovery; Schwartz, 1999) only Leveled Literacy Intervention and Reading Recovery, both interventions for struggling readers, have studies that meet WWC standards. The evidence indicates that there were mixed effects across outcomes for Leveled Literacy Intervention and positive or potentially positive effects for Reading Recovery (e.g., Chapman & Tunmer, 2016 ). Classroom reading programs are typically built around the notion of evidence-informed practices – teaching approaches that are grounded in quality research – but have not been subjected to direct scientific evaluation. As a consequence, it is currently impossible for schools to select basal reading programs that adhere to strict evidence-based standards (e.g., ESSA, 2015 ). As an alternative, schools must develop selection criteria for choosing classroom reading programs informed by the growing scientific evidence on instructional factors that support early reading development (e.g., Castles et al., 2018 ; Foorman et al.2017 ; Rayner et al., 2001 ).

Common instructional approaches that lack generalizable empirical support include such practices as close reading ( Welsch et al., 2019 ), use of decodable text ( Jenkins et al., 2004 ), sustained silent reading ( NICHD, 2000 ), multisensory approaches ( Birsh, 2011 ), and the three-cueing system to support word recognition development (Seidenberg, 2017). Some of these instructional approaches rest on sound theoretical and pedagogical grounds. For example, giving beginning readers the opportunity to read decodable texts provides practice applying the grapheme-phoneme relations they have learned to successfully decode words ( Foorman et al., 2016a ), thus building lexical memory to support word reading accuracy and automaticity (Ehri, this issue). However, the only study to experimentally examine the impact of reading more versus less decodable texts as part of an early intervention phonics program for at risk first graders found no differences between the two groups on any of the posttest measures ( Jenkins et al., 2004 ). Such a result does not rule out the possibility of the usefulness of decodable texts but rather indicates the need to disentangle the active ingredients of effective interventions to specify what to use, when, how often, and for whom.

Similarly, multisensory approaches (e.g., Orton-Gillingham) that teach reading by using multiple senses (i.e., sight, hearing, touch, and movement) to help children make systematic connections between language, letters, and words ( Birsh, 2011 ) are commonplace and have considerable clinical support for facilitating reading development in children who struggle to learn to read. However, there is little scientific evidence that indicates that a multisensory approach is more effective than similarly structured phonological-based approaches that do not include a strong multisensory component (e.g., Boyer & Ehri, 2011 ; Ritchey & Goeke, 2006 ; Torgesen et al., 2001 ). With further research, we may find that a multisensory component is a critical ingredient of intervention for struggling readers, but we lack this empirical evidence currently.

Instruction in reading comprehension is another area where despite some studies showing moderate or strong support (see section on compelling evidence) other practices are employed despite limited support for them (e.g., Boulay et al., 2015 ). The complexity of reading comprehension relies on numerous cognitive resources and background knowledge; as a result, intervention directed exclusively at one component or another is not likely to be that impactful. For example, research shows a clear relation between breadth and depth of vocabulary and reading comprehension ( Wagner et al., 2007 ). One implication of this relation is that teaching vocabulary could improve reading comprehension. Numerous studies have tested this implication using instructional approaches that vary from teaching words in isolation to practices that involve instruction in the use of context to learn the meaning of unfamiliar words. Instruction has also included strategies to determine meaning of words through word study and morphological analysis (e.g., Beck & McKeown, 2007 ; Lesaux et al., 2014 ). Although these practices have been effective in increasing vocabulary knowledge of the words taught, there is limited evidence of transfer to untaught words (as measured by standardized measures) or to improvement in general reading comprehension ( Elleman et al., 2009 ; Lesaux et al., 2010 ). Such findings do not mean that vocabulary instruction is not a useful practice; rather, by itself, it is not sufficient to improve reading comprehension. To make meaningful gains, intervention for reading comprehension likely requires addressing multiple components of language as well as teaching content knowledge (see next section) to make sizable gains.

Other instructional practices go directly against what is known from the science of reading. For example, the three-cueing approach to support early word recognition (i.e., relying on a combination of semantic, syntactic, and graphophonic cues simultaneously to formulate an intelligent hypothesis about a word’s identity) ignores 40 years of overwhelming evidence that orthographic mapping involves the formation of letter-sound connections to bond spelling, pronunciation, and meaning of specific words in memory (see Ehri, this issue). Moreover, relying on alternative cuing systems impedes the building of automatic word-recognition skill that is the hallmark of skilled word reading ( Stanovich, 1990 ; 1991 ). The English orthography, being both alphabetic-phonemic and morpho-phonemic, clearly privileges the use of various levels of grapheme-phoneme correspondences to read words ( Frost, 2012 ), with rapid context-free word recognition being the process that most clearly distinguishes good from poor readers ( Perfetti, 1992 ; Stanovich, 1980 ). Guessing at a word amounts to a lost learning trial to help children learn the orthography of the word and thus reduce the need to guess the word in the future ( Castles et al., 2018 ; Share, 1995 ).

Similarly, alternative approaches to improving reading skills for struggling readers often fall well outside the scientific consensus regarding sources of reading difficulties. Some of these approaches are based on the tenet that temporal processing deficits in the auditory (e.g., Tallal, 1984 ) and visual (e.g., Stein, 2019 ) systems of the brain are causally related to poor word-reading development. Although there is some evidence that typically developing and struggling readers differ on measures tapping auditory ( Casini et al., 2018 ; Protopapas, 2014 ) and visual (e.g., Eden et al., 1995; Olson & Datta, 2002 ) processing skill, there is little evidence to support the use of instructional programs designed to improve auditory or visual systems to ameliorate reading problems ( Strong et al., 2011 ). Further, interventions designed to decrease visual confusion (e.g., Dyslexie font) or modify transient channel processing (e.g., Irlen lenses) to improve reading skill for children with reading disability have also failed to garner scientific support ( Hyatt et al., 2009 ; Iovino et al., 1998 ; Marinus et al., 2016 ). Similarly, although use of video games to improve reading via enhanced visual attention is reported to be an effective intervention for children with reading disability ( Peters et al., 2019 ), studies of this supplemental intervention approach have not compared it to standard supplemental approaches. Finally, studies of interventions designed to enhance other cognitive processes, such as working memory, also lack evidence effectiveness in terms of improved reading-related outcomes (e.g., Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016 ).

Promising but Not (Yet) Compelling Evidence in the Science of Reading

There are many promising areas of research that are poised to provide compelling evidence to inform the science of reading in the coming years. As we do not have space to provide a comprehensive list, we highlight only a few promising areas in prevention research and elementary education research.

Promising Directions in Prevention Research

Research on the prevention of reading problems is critical for our ability to reduce the number of children who struggle learning to read. One area of prevention research that has great promise but needs more evidence is how to more fully develop preschoolers’ language abilities that support later reading success. Both correlational and experimental findings indicate that providing children with opportunities to engage in high-quality conversations, coupled with exposure to advanced language models, matters for language development ( Cabell et al., 2015 ; Dickinson & Porche, 2011 ; Lonigan et al., 2011 ; Wasik & Hindman, 2018). Yet, most programs have a more robust impact on children’s proximal language learning (i.e., learning taught words) than on generalized language learning as measured with standardized assessments ( Marulis & Neuman, 2010 ).

Promising studies that have demonstrated significant effects on children’s general language development elucidate potential points of leverage. First, improving the connection between the school and home contexts by including parents as partners can promote synergistic learning for children as language-learning activities in school and home settings are increasingly aligned (e.g., Lonigan & Whitehurst, 1998 ). A second leverage point is increasing attention to children’s active use of language in the classroom to promote a rich dialogue between children and adults (e.g., Lonigan et al., 2011 ; Wasik & Hindman, 2018). A third leverage point is integrating content area instruction into early literacy instruction to improve language learning, for example, building children’s conceptual knowledge of the social and natural world and teaching vocabulary words within the context of related ideas (e.g., Gonzalez et al., 2011 ).

Promising Directions in Elementary Education Research

We present two promising areas in reading research with elementary-age students, one focused on improving linguistic comprehension and one focused on improving decoding, consistent with the simple view of reading.

The knowledge a reader brings to a text is the chief determinant of whether the reader will understand that text ( Anderson & Pearson, 1984 ). Thus, building knowledge is an essential, yet neglected, part of improving linguistic comprehension (Cabell & Hwang, this issue). Teaching reading is most often approached in early elementary classrooms as a subject that is independent from other subjects, such as science and social studies ( Palinscar & Duke, 2004 ). As such, reading is taught using curricula that do not systematically build children’s knowledge of the social and natural world. Instruction in reading and the content areas does not have to be an either/or proposition. Rather, the teaching of reading and of content-area learning can be simultaneously taught and integrated to powerfully impact children’s learning of both reading and content knowledge (e.g., Connor et al., 2017 ; Kim et al., 2020 ; Williams et al., 2014 ). This area of research is promising but not yet compelling, due to the small number of experimental and quasi-experimental studies that have examined either integrated content-area and literacy instruction or content-rich English Language Arts instruction in K-5 settings (approximately 31 studies). Through meta-analysis, this corpus of studies demonstrates that combining knowledge building and literacy approaches has a positive impact on both vocabulary and comprehension outcomes for elementary-age children ( Hwang et al., 2019 ). Further rigorous studies are needed that test widely used content-rich English Language Arts curricula (Cabell & Hwang, 2020, this issue); also required is new development of integrative and interdisciplinary approaches in this area.

There is also promising research on helping students to decode words more efficiently. It is widely accepted that students with reading difficulties often have underlying deficits in phonological processing (e.g., Brady & Schankweiler, 1991 ; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994 ; Torgesen, 2000 ; Vellutino et al., 1996 ) and these deficits are believed to disrupt the acquisition of spelling-to-sound translation routines that form the basis of early decoding-skill development (e.g., van IJzendoorn & Bus, 1994 ; Rack et al., 1992 ). For developing readers, decoding an unfamiliar letter string can result in either full or partial decoding. During partial decoding, the reader must match the assembled phonology from decoding with their lexical representation of a word ( Venezky, 1999 ). For example, encountering the word island might render the incorrect but partial decoding attempt, “izland”. A child’s flexibility with the partially decoded word is referred to as their “set for variability” or their ability to go from the decoded form to the correct pronunciation of a word. This skill serves as a bridge between decoding and lexical pronunciations and may be an important second step in the decoding process ( Elbro et al., 2012 ).

The matching of partial phonemic-decoding output is facilitated by the child’s decoding skills, the quality of the child’s lexical word representation, and by the potential contextual support of text ( Nation & Castles, 2017 ). Correlational studies indicate that students’ ability to go from a decoded form of a word to a correct pronunciation (their set for variability) predicts the reading of irregular words ( Tunmer & Chapman, 2012 ), regular words ( Elbro, et al., 2012 ), and nonwords ( Steacy et al., 2019a ). Set for variability has also been found to be a stronger predictor of word reading than phonological awareness in students in grades 2-5 (e.g., Steacy et al., 2019b ). Recent studies in this area suggest that children can benefit from being encouraged to engage with the irregularities of English ( Dyson et al., 2017 ) to promote the implicit knowledge structures needed to read and spell these complex words. Additional research suggests that set for variability training can be effective in promoting early word reading skills (e.g., Savage et al., 2018 ; Zipke, 2016 ). The work done in this area to date suggests that set for variability requires child knowledge structures and strategies, which can be developed through instruction, that allow successful matching of partial phonemic-decoding output with the corresponding phonological, morphological, and semantic lexical representations.

Where Do We Go Next in the Science of Reading?

Basic science research.

The science of reading has reached some consensus on the typical development of reading skill and how individual differences may alter this trajectory (e.g., Boscardin et al., 2008 ; Hjetland et al., 2019; Peng et al., 2019 ). Less is known about factors and mechanisms related to reading among diverse learners, a critical barrier to the field’s ability to address and prevent reading difficulty when it arises. Investigations with large and diverse participant samples are needed to improve understanding of how child characteristics additively and synergistically affect reading acquisition ( Hernandez, 2011 ; Lonigan et al., 2013 ). Insufficient research disentangles the influence of English-learner status for children who also have identified disabilities (Solari et al., 2014; Wagner et al., 2005 ). Greater attention to how language variation (e.g., dialect use) and differences in language experience affect reading development is crucial ( Patton Terry et al., 2010 ; Seidenberg & MacDonald, 2018; Washington et al., 2018). New realizations of the interaction between child characteristics and the depth of the orthography have also highlighted the importance of implicit learning in early reading ( Seidenberg, 2005 ; Steacy et al., 2019). Innovative cross-linguistic research is exploring how diverse methods of representing pronunciation and meaning within different orthographies, and children’s developing awareness of these methods, jointly predict reading skills (e.g., Kuo & Anderson, 2006 ; Wade-Woolley, 2016 ). Furthermore, a better understanding of the role of executive function, socio-emotional resilience factors, and biopsychosocial risk variables (e.g., poverty and trauma) on reading development is critical. Additional research like this, in English and across languages, is needed to develop effective instruction and assessments for all leaners.

A clearer understanding of child and contextual influences on the development of reading also will support improvements in how early and accurately children at risk for reading difficulties and disabilities are identified. Currently, numerous challenges remain in identifying children early enough to maximize benefits of interventions ( Colenbrander et al., 2018 ; Gersten et al., 2017b ). Investigators often use behavioral precursors or correlates of reading to estimate children’s risk for reading failure. Whereas this work has shown some promise ( Catts et al., 2015 ; Compton et al., 2006 , 2010 ; Lyytinen et al., 2015 ; Thompson et al., 2015 ), identification of risk typically involves high error rates, especially for preschoolers and kindergarteners who might benefit most from early identification and intervention. Similar challenges to accuracy have emerged when identifying older children with reading disabilities. Historically, this process has relied on discrepancy models (e.g., such as between reading skill and general cognitive aptitude), often yielding a just single comparison on which decisions are based (Waesche et al., 2011).

Challenges to identification for both younger and older children may be best met with frameworks that recognize the multifactorial casual basis of reading problems ( Pennington et al., 2012 ). Newer models of identification that combine across multiple indicators of risk derived from current skill, and that augment these indicators with other metrics of potential risk, may yield improved identification and interventions (e.g., Erbeli et al., 2018 ; Spencer et al., 2011). In particular, future research will need to consider and combine, while considering both additive and interactive effects, a wide array of measures, which may include genetic, neurological, and biopsychosocial indicators ( Wagner et al., 2019 ). Furthermore, more evaluation is needed of some new models of identification that integrate both risk and protective, or resiliency, factors, to see if these models increase the likelihood of correctly identifying those children most in need of additional instructional support (e.g., Catts & Petscher, 2020 ; Haft et al., 2016 ). Even if beneficial, it is likely that for early identification to be maximally effective, early risk assessments will need to be combined with progress monitoring of response to instruction ( Miciak & Fletcher, 2020 ). Of course, for such an approach to be successful, all children must receive high-quality reading instruction from the beginning and interventions need to be in place to address children who show varying levels of risk ( Foorman et al., 2016a ). Identifying children at risk and providing appropriate intervention early on has the potential to significantly improve reading outcomes and reduce the negative consequences of reading failure.

Intervention Innovations

Despite successes, too many children still struggle to read novel text with understanding, and intervention design efforts have not fully met this challenge ( Compton et al., 2014 ; Phillips et al., 2016 ; Vaughn et al., 2017 ). Greater creativity and integration of research from a broader array of complementary fields, including cognitive science and behavioral genetics may be required to deal with long-standing problems. For example, genetic information may have causal explanatory power; randomized trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of using such information to select and individualize instruction and intervention ( Hart, 2016 ).

The field would benefit from increased attention to the problem of fading intervention effects over time. Although there can be detectable effects of interventions several years after they are completed (e.g., Blachman et al., 2014 ; Vadasy et al., 2011 ; Vadasy & Sanders, 2013 ), invariably effect sizes reduce over time. A meta-analysis of long-term effects of interventions for phonemic awareness, fluency, and reading comprehension found a 40 percent reduction in effect sizes within one year post-intervention ( Suggate, 2016 ). Perhaps reading interventions with larger initial effects or sequential reading interventions with smaller but cumulating effects would be more resistant to fade-out.

Solutions to the problem of diminishing effects may be inspired by examples from other fields. The field of memory includes examples of content that appears immune from forgetting. This phenomenon has been called permastore ( Bahrick, 1984 ). For example, people only meaningfully exposed to a foreign language in school classes will still retain some knowledge of the language 50 years later. Additionally, expertise in the form of world-class performance appears to result from cumulative effects of long-term deliberate practice ( Ericsson, 1996 ), and skilled reading can be viewed as an example of expert performance ( Wagner & Stanovich, 1996 ). Informed by these concepts and by advances in early math instruction (e.g., Sarama et al., 2012 ; Kang et al., 2019 ), reading intervention studies should prioritize follow-up evaluations, including direct comparisons of follow-through strategies aimed at sustaining benefits from earlier instruction. For example, studies should evaluate booster interventions, professional development that better aligns cross-grade instruction, and how re-teaching and cumulative review may consolidate skill acquisition across time (e.g., Cepeda et al., 2006 ; Smolen et al., 2016 ).

Translational and Implementation Science

If the science of reading is to be applied in a manner resulting in achievement for all learners, the field must increase its focus on processes supporting implementation of evidence-based reading practices in schools. The field can leverage its considerable evidence-base to systematically investigate, with replication, both the effectiveness of reading instructional practices with diverse learners and to investigate processes that facilitate or prevent adoption, implementation, and sustainability of these practices (National Research Council, 2002; Schneider, 2018 ; Slavin, 2002 ). Research on these processes in educational contexts may be best facilitated by making use of methodological and conceptual tools developed within the traditions of translation and implementation science research ( Gilliland et al., 2019 ; Eccles & Mittman, 2006 ). For example, these frameworks can support studies on whether and how educators and policymakers use information about evidence to inform decision making (e.g., Farley-Ripple et al., 2018 ) and studies on how institutional routines may need to be adapted to best integrate new procedures and practices (e.g., scheduling changes in the school day; Foorman et al., 2016b ).

Reading research that uses translational and implementation science frameworks and methodologies will make more explicit the processes of adoption, implementation and sustainability and how these interact within diverse settings and with multiple populations ( Brown et al., 2017 ; Fixsen et al., 2005 , 2013 ). This work will be guided by new questions, not only asking “what works” but also “what works for whom under what conditions” and “what factors promote sustainability of implementation.” Innovative studies would adhere to rigorous scientific standards, prioritize hypothesis testing within a deductive, experimental framework, and leverage qualitative methodologies to systematically explore implementation processes and factors ( Brown et al., 2017 ). Results could iteratively inform the breadth of scientific reading research, including basic mechanisms related to reading and the development of novel assessments and interventions to support achievement among diverse learners in diverse settings ( Cook & Odom, 2013 ; Douglas et al., 2015 ; Forman et al., 2013 ).

There has recently been a resurgence of the debate on the science of reading, and in this article, we described the existing evidence base and possible future directions. Compelling evidence is available to guide understanding of how reading develops and identify proven instructional practices that impact both decoding and linguistic comprehension. Whereas there is some evidence that is either not compelling or has yet to be generated for instructional practices and programs that are widely used, the scientific literature on reading is ever-expanding through contributions from the fields education, psychology, linguistics, communication science, neuroscience, and computational sciences. As these additions to the literature mature and contribute to an evidence base, we anticipate they will inform and shape the science of reading as well as the science of teaching reading.

Acknowledgments

First author was determined by group consensus. Authors equally contributed and are listed and alphabetically. The authors’ work was supported by funding from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the Institute of Education Sciences (R305A160241, R305A170430, R305F100005, R305F100027, R324A180020, R324B19002) and Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P50HD52120, P20HD091013, HD095193, HD072286).

• Anderson RC, & Pearson PD (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In Pearson PD, Barr R, Kamil ML, & Mosenthal P (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (1st ed., pp. 255–291). New York: Longman. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baker S, Lesaux N, Jayanthi M, Dimino J, Proctor CP, Morris J, … Newman-Gonchar R (2014). Teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school (NCEE 2014-4012) . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/english_learners_pg_040114.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Bahrick HP (1984). Semantic memory content in permastore: Fifty years of memory for Spanish learned in school . Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 113 ,1–29. DOI: 10.1037//0096-3445.113.1.1 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beck IL, & McKeown MG (2007). Increasing young low-income children’s oral vocabulary repertoires through rich and focused instruction . The Elementary School Journal , 107 ( 3 ), 251–271. DOI: 10.1086/511706 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berkeley S, Scruggs TE, & Mastropier MA (2012). Reading comprehension instruction for student with learning disabilities, 1995-2006: A meta-analysis . Remedial and Special Education , 31 , 423–436. 10.1177/0741932509355988 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Birsh JR (2011). Multisensory teaching of basic language skills . Brookes Publishing Company. PO Box 10624, Baltimore, MD 21285. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blachman BA, Schatschneider C, Fletcher JM, Francis DJ, Clonan SM, Shaywitz BA, & Shaywitz SE (2004). Effects of intensive reading remediation for second and third graders and a 1-year follow-up . Journal of Educational Psychology , 96 ( 3 ), 444–461. doi: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.444 [ Google Scholar ]
• Blachman BA, Schatschneider C, Fletcher JM, Murray MS, Munger KA, & Vaughn MG (2014). Intensive reading remediation in grade 2 or 3: Are there effects a decade later? Journal of Educational Psychology , 106 ( 1 ), 46–57. doi: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/10.1037/a0033663 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boscardin CK, Muthén B, Francis DJ, & Baker EL (2008). Early identification of reading difficulties using heterogeneous developmental trajectories . Journal of Educational Psychology , 100 , 192–208. 10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.192 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boulay B, Goodson B, Frye M, Blocklin M, & Price C (2015). Summary of Research Generated by Striving Readers on the Effectiveness of Interventions for Struggling Adolescent Readers. NCEE 2016-4001 . National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyer N, & Ehri LC (2011). Contribution of phonemic segmentation instruction with letters and articulation pictures to word reading and spelling in beginners . Scientific Studies of Reading , 15 ( 5 ), 440–470. 10.1080/10888438.2010.520778 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brady S (2020). Strategies used in education for resisting the evidence and implications of the science of reading . The Reading Journal , 1 ( 1 ), 33–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brady SA, & Shankweiler DP (Eds.). (1991). Phonological processes in literacy: A tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown CH, Curran G, Palinkas LA, Aarons GA, Wells KB, Jones L, Collins LM, Duan N, Mittman BS, Wallace A, Tabak RG, Ducharme L, Chambers DA, Neta G, Wiley T, Landsverk J, Cheung K, & Cruden G (2017). An overview of research and evaluation designs for dissemination and implementation . Annual Review of Public Health , 38 , 1–22. 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044215 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cabell SQ, Justice LM, McGinty AS, DeCoster J, & Forston L (2015). Teacher-child conversations in preschool classrooms: Contributions to children’s vocabulary development . Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 30 , 80–92. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.09.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Calkins L (2020). No one gets to own the term “The Science of Reading” . Retrieved from: https://readingandwritingproject.org/news/no-one-gets-to-own-the-term-the-science-of-reading [ Google Scholar ]
• Caravolas M, Lervåg A, Defior S, Málkova G,S, & Hulme C (2013). Different patterns, but equivalent predictors, of growth in reading in consistent and inconsistent orthographies . Psychological Science , 24 , 1398–1407. 10.1177/0956797612473122 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Casini L, Pech-Georgel C, & Ziegler JC (2018). It's about time: Revisiting temporal processing deficits in dyslexia . Developmental Science , 21 ( 2 ), 1–14. DOI: 10.1111/desc.12530 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Castles A, Rastle K, & Nation K (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert . Psychological Science in the Public Interest , 19 ( 1 ), 5–51. 10.1177/1529100618772271 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Catts H, Adlof S, & Weismer SE (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading . Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research , 49 , 278–293. 10.1044/1092-4388(2006/023) [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Catts H, Herrera S, Nielsen D, & Bridges, 2015. Early prediction of reading comprehension within the simple view framework . Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal , 28 , 1407–1425. 10.1007/s11145-015-9576-x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Catts H, Hogan T, & Adlof S (2005). Developmental changes in reading and reading disabilities. In Catts H & Kamhi A, A. (Eds.). Connections between language and reading disabilities . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum [ Google Scholar ]
• Catts HW, & Petscher Y (2020, March 25). A cumulative risk and protection model of dyslexia . 10.35542/osf.io/g57ph [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cepeda NJ, Pashler H, Vul E, Wixted JT, & Rohrer D (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis . Psychological Bulletin , 132 ( 3 ), 354–380. 10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chall J (1967). Learning to read: The great debate . New York: McGraw-Hill. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chapman JW, & Tunmer WE (2016). Is Reading Recovery an effective intervention for students with reading difficulties? A critique of the i3 scale-up study . Reading Psychology , 37 ( 7 ), 1025–1042. 10.1080/02702711.2016.1157538 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Colenbrander D, Ricketts J, & Breadmore HL (2018). Early identification of dyslexia: Understanding the issues . Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools , 49 , 817–828. 10.1044/2018_LSHSS-DYSLC-18-0007 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Compton DL, Fuchs D, Fuchs LS, & Bryant JD (2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two-year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures . Journal of Educational Psychology , 98 , 394–409. [ Google Scholar ]
• Compton DL, Fuchs D, Fuchs LS, Bouton B, Gilbert JK, Barquero LA, Cho E, & Crouch RC (2010). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: Eliminating false positives and exploring the promise of a two-stage screening process . Journal of Educational Psychology . 102 , 327–340. 10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.394 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Compton DL, Miller AC, Elleman AM, & Steacy LM (2014). Have we forsaken reading theory in the name of “quick fix” interventions for children with reading disability? Scientific Studies of Reading , 18 ( 1 ), 55–73. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2013.836200 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Connor CMD, Dombek J, Crowe EC, Spencer M, Tighe EL, Coffinger S, … Petscher Y (2017). Acquiring science and social studies knowledge in kindergarten through fourth grade: Conceptualization, design, implementation, and efficacy testing of content-area literacy instruction (CALI) . Journal of Educational Psychology , 109 ( 3 ), 301–320. doi: 10.1037/edu0000128 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cook BG, & Odom SL (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education . Exceptional Children , 79 , 135–144. 10.1177/001440291307900201 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dane FC (1990). Research methods (Vol. 120 ). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dehaene S (2011). The massive impact of literacy on the brain and its consequences for education . Human Neuroplascticity and Education , 117 , 19–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dehaene-Lambertz G, Monzalvo K, & Dehaene S (2018). The emergence of the visual word form: Longitudinal evolution of category-specific ventral visual areas during reading acquisition . PLoS biology , 16 ( 3 ), e2004103. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeWalt DA, & Hink A (2009). Health literacy and child health outcomes: a systematic review of the literature . Pediatrics , 124 ( Supplement 3 ), S265–S274. 10.1542/peds.2009-1162B [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dickinson DK, & Porche MV (2011). Relation between language experiences in preschool classrooms and children’s kindergarten and fourth-grade language and reading abilities . Child Development , 82 , 870–886. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01576.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Douglas NF, Campbell WN, & Hinckley J (2015). Implementation science: Buzzword or game changer? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research , 58 , S1827–S1836. doi: 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-15-0302. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dyson H, Best W, Solity J, & Hulme C (2017). Training mispronunciation correction and word meanings improves children’s ability to learn to read words . Scientific Studies of Reading , 1–16. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2017.1315424 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eccles MP & Mittman BS (2006). Welcome to implementation science . Implementation Science , 1 , 1–3. 10.1186/1748-5908-1-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eden GF, VanMeter JW, Rumsey JM, Maisog JM, Woods RP, & Zeffiro TA (1996). Abnormal processing of visual motion in dyslexia revealed by functional brain imaging . Nature , 382 ( 6586 ), 66–69. DOI: 10.1038/382066a0 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ehri LC (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues . Scientific Studies of Reading , 9 , 167–188. 10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ehri LC (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning . Scientific Studies of Reading , 18 ( 1 ), 5–21. 10.1080/10888438.2013.819356 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ehri LC, Nunes SR, Stahl SA, & Willows DM (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis . Review of Educational Research , 71 , 393–447. 10.3102/00346543071003393 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ehri LC, Nunes SR, Willows D,M, Schuster BV, Yaghoub-Zadeh Z, & Shanahan T (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis . Reading Research Quarterly , 36 , 250–287. 10.1598/RRQ.36.3.2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elbro C, de Jong PF, Houter D, & Nielsen A (2012). From spelling pronunciation to lexical access: A second step in word decoding? Scientific Studies of Reading , 16 ( 4 ), 341–359. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2011.568556 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elleman A, Lindo E, Morphy P, & Compton D (2009). The impact of vocabulary instruction on passage-level comprehension of school-age children: A meta-analysis , Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 2 , 1–44. 10.1080/19345740802539200 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ellis NC, Natsume I, Stavropoulou K, Hoxhallari L, van Daal VHP, Polyzoe N, et al. (2004). The effects of the orthographic depth on learning to read alphabetic, syllabic, and logographic scripts . Reading Research Quarterly , 39 , 438–468. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.39.4.5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Erbeli F (2019). Translating research findings in genetics of learning disabilities to special education instruction . Mind, Brain, and Education , 13 ( 2 ), 74–79. 10.1111/mbe.12196 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Erbeli F, Hart SA, Wagner RW, & Taylor J (2018). Examining the etiology of reading disability as conceptualized by the hybrid model . Scientific Studies of Reading , 22 ( 2 ), 167–180. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2017.1407321. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ericsson KA (1996). The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Every Student Succeeds Act (2015). Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015-2016) .
• Farley-Ripple, May H, Karpyn A, Tilley K, & McDonough K (2018). Rethinking connections between research and practice in education: A conceptual framework . Educational Researcher , 47 ( 4 ), 235–245. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fixsen D, Blase K, Metz A, & Van Dyke M (2013). Statewide implementation of evidence-based programs . Exceptional Children , 79 , 213–230. 10.1177/001440291307900206 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fixsen DL, Naoom SF, Blase KA, Friedman RM & Wallace F (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature . Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231). [ Google Scholar ]
• Flesch R (1955). Why Johnny can’t read - and what you can do about it . NY: Harper & Brothers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Foorman B, Beyler N, Borradaile K, Coyne M, Denton C, Dimino J, …Wissel S (2016a). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade (NCEE 2016-4008) . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/wwc_foundationalreading_070516.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Foorman B, Dombek J, & Smith K (2016b). Seven elements important to successful implementation of early literacy intervention . New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development , 2016 ( 154 ), 49–65. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foorman BR, Koon S, Petscher Y, Mitchell A, & Truckenmiller A (2015). Examining general and specific factors in the dimensionality of oral language and reading in 4th–10th grades . Journal of Educational Psychology , 107 , 884–899. DOI: 10.1037/edu0000026 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foorman B, Petscher Y, Herrera S (2018). Unique and common effects of decoding and language factors in predicting reading comprehension in grades 1-10 . Learning and Individual Differences , 63 , 12–23. 10.1016/j.lindif.2018.02.011 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foorman BF, Smith KG, & Kosanovich ML (2017). Rubric for evaluating reading/language arts instructional materials for kindergarten to grade 5 (REL 2016-219) . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. [ Google Scholar ]
• Forman SG, Shapiro ES, Codding RS, Gonzales JE, Reddy LA, Rosenfield SA, Sanetti LMH, & Stoiber KC (2013). Implementation science and school psychology . School Psychology Quarterly , 28 , 77–100. 10.1037/spq0000019 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frost R (2012). Toward a universal model of reading . Behavioral & Brain Sciences , 35 , 263–279. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X11001841 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• García JR, & Cain K (2014). Decoding and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis to identify which reader and assessment characteristics influence the strength of the relationship in English . Review of Educational Research , 84 ( 1 ), 74–111. 10.3102/0034654313499616 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gersten R, Baker SK, Shanahan T, Linan-Thompson S, Collins P, & Scarcella R (2007). Effective literacy and English language instruction for English learners in the elementary grades: A practice guide (NCEE 2007-4011) . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/20074011.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Gersten R, Compton D, Connor CM, Dimino J, Santoro L, Linan-Thompson S, & Tilly WD (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide. (NCEE 2009-4045) . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/rti_math_pg_042109.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Gersten R, Jayanthi M, & Dimino J (2017a). Too much, too soon? Unanswered questions from national response to intervention evaluation . Exceptional Children , 83 , 244–254. 10.1177/0014402917692847 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gersten R, Newman-Gonchar R, Haymond K, & Dimino J (2017b). What is the evidence base for Response to Intervention in reading in grades 1–3? (REL 2016-129) . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED573686.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillam RB, Loeb DF, Hoffman LM, Bohman T, Champlin CA, Thibodeau L, … & Friel-Patti S (2008). The efficacy of Fast ForWord language intervention in school-age children with language impairment: A randomized controlled trial . Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research , 51 ( 1 ), 97–119. 10.1044/1092-4388(2008/007) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilliland CT, White J, Gee B, Kreeftmeijer-Vegter R, Bietrix F, Ussi AE, Hajduch M, Kocis P, Chiba N, Hirasawa R, Suematsu M, Bryans J, Newman S, Hall MD, & Austin CP (2019). The fundamental characteristics of a translational scientist . ACS Pharmacology & Translational Science , 2 , 213–261. 10.1021/acsptsci.9b00022 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gonzalez JE, Pollard-Durodola S, Simmons DC, Taylor AB, Davis MJ, Kim M, & Simmons L (2011). Developing low-income preschoolers’ social studies and science vocabulary knowledge through content-focused shared book reading . Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness , 4 ( 1 ), 25–52. doi: 10.1080/19345747.2010.487927 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodman KS (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game , Literacy Research and Instruction , 6 ( 4 ), 126–135, 10.1080/19388076709556976 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gough PB, & Tunmer WE (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability . Remedial and Special Education , 7 , 6–10. 10.1177/074193258600700104 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haft SL, Myers CA, & Hoeft F (2016). Socio-emotional and cognitive resilience in children with reading disabilities . Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences , 10 , 133–141. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hanford E (2019). At a loss for words: How a flawed idea is teaching millions of kids to be poor readers . Retrieved from: https://www.apmreports.org/story/2019/08/22/whats-wrong-how-schools-teach-reading [ Google Scholar ]
• Hart SA (2016). Precision education initiative: Moving toward personalized education . Mind, Brain, and Education , 10 ( 4 ), 209–211.doi: 10.1111/mbe.12109 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hernandez DJ (2011). Double jeopardy: How third-grade reading skills and poverty influence high school graduation . Annie E. Casey Foundation. https://files-eric-ed-gov.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/fulltext/ED518818.pdf https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1097/00011363-200501000-00004 [ Google Scholar ]
• Hwang H, Cabell SQ, White TG, & Joiner R (2019, December). A systematic review of the research on the effect of knowledge building in literacy instruction on comprehension and vocabulary in the elementary years. Presentation at the annual meeting of the Literacy Research Association , Tampa, FL. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hyatt KJ, Stephenson J, & Carter M (2009). A review of three controversial educational practices: Perceptual motor programs, sensory integration, and tinted lenses . Education & Treatment of Children , 32 ( 2 ), 313–342. doi: 10.1353/etc.0.0054 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Iovino I, Fletcher JM, Breitmeyer BG, & Foorman BR (1998). Colored overlays for visual perceptual deficits in children with reading disability and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Are they differentially effective? Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology , 20 ( 6 ), 791–806. DOI: 10.1076/jcen.20.6.791.1113 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Israel SE, & Duffy GG (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of Research on Reading Comprehension . New York: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jenkins JR, Peyton JA, Sanders EA, & Vadasy PF (2004). Effects of reading decodable texts in supplemental first-grade tutoring . Scientific Studies of Reading , 8 , 53–85. 10.1207/s1532799xssr0801_4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Joyce E (2020, January 22). Scientific Racism 2.0 (SR2.0): An erroneous argument from genetics which inadvertently refines scientific racism . 10.35542/osf.io/f7jnh [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kamil ML, Borman GD, Dole J, Kral CC, Salinger T, & Torgesen J (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice guide (NCEE #2008-4027) . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/adlit_pg_082608.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Kang CY, Duncan GJ, Clements DH, Sarama J, & Bailey DH (2019). The roles of transfer of learning and forgetting in the persistence and fadeout of early childhood mathematics interventions . Journal of Educational Psychology , 111 , 590–603. 10.1037/edu0000297 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kershaw S & Schatschneider C (2012). A latent variable approach to the simple view of reading . Reading and Writing , 25 , 433–464. 10.1177/0741932518764833 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim JS, Burkhauser MA, Mesite LM, Asher CA, Relyea JE, Fitzgerald J, & Elmore J (2020). Improving reading comprehension, science domain knowledge, and reading engagement through a first-grade content literacy intervention . Journal of Educational Psychology . Advance online publication. 10.1037/edu0000465. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuo LJ, & Anderson RC (2006). Morphological awareness and learning to read: A cross-language perspective . Educational Psychologist , 41 , 161–180. 10.1207/s15326985ep4103_3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Language and Reading Research Consortium & Chiu YD (2018). The simple view of reading across development: Prediction of grade 3 reading comprehension from prekindergarten skills . Remedial and Special Education , 39 ( 5 ), 289–303. 10.1177/0741932518762055 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee JJ, Wedow R, Okbay A, Kong E, Maghzian O, Zacher M, … & Fontana MA (2018). Gene discovery and polygenic prediction from a 1.1-million-person GWAS of educational attainment . Nature Genetics , 50 ( 8 ), 1112–1121.doi: 10.1038/s41588-018-0147-3 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lesaux NK, Kieffer MJ, Faller SE, & Kelley JG (2010). The effectiveness and ease of implementation of an academic vocabulary intervention for linguistically diverse students in urban middle schools . Reading Research Quarterly , 45 ( 2 ), 196–228. 10.1598/RRQ.45.2.3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lesaux NK, Kieffer MJ, Kelley JG, & Harris JR (2014). Effects of academic vocabulary instruction for linguistically diverse adolescents: Evidence from a randomized field trial . American Educational Research Journal , 51 ( 6 ), 1159–1194. 10.3102/0002831214532165 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Little CW, Haughbrook R, & Hart SA (2017). Cross-study differences in the etiology of reading comprehension: A meta-analytical review of twin studies . Behavior Genetics , 47 ( 1 ), 52–76. 10.1007/s10519-016-9810-6 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan CJ, Anthony JL, Phillips BM, Purpura DJ, Wilson SB, & McQueen J (2009). The nature of preschool phonological processing abilities and their relations to vocabulary, general cognitive abilities, and print knowledge . Journal of Educational Psychology , 101 , 345–358. 10.1037/a0013837 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan CJ, Burgess SR, Anthony JL, & Barker TA (1998). Development of phonological sensitivity in two- to five-year-old children . Journal of Educational Psychology , 90 , 294–311. 10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.294 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan C, Burgess S, & Schatschneider C (2018). Examining the Simple View of Reading with elementary school children: Still simple after all these years . Remedial and Special Education , 39 ( 5 ), 260–273. 10.1177/0741932518764833 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan CJ, Farver JM, Nakamoto J, & Eppe S (2013). Developmental trajectories of preschool early literacy skills: A comparison of language-minority and monolingual-English children . Developmental Psychology , 49 , 1943–1957. 10.1037/a0031408 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan CJ, Farver JM, Phillips BM, & Clancy-Menchetti J (2011). Promoting the development of preschool children’s emergent literacy skills: A randomized evaluation of a literacy-focused curriculum and two professional development models . Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal , 24 , 305–337. doi: 10.1007/s11145-009-9214-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan CJ, & Whitehurst GJ (1998). Relative efficacy of parent and teacher involvement in a shared-reading intervention for preschool children from low-income backgrounds . Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 13 , 263–290. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2006(99)80038-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lyytinen H, Erskine J, Hämäläinen J, Torppa M & Ronimus M (2015). Dyslexia-early identification and prevention: Highlights of the Jyvaskyla longitudinal study of dyslexia . Current Developmental Disorders Report , 2 , 330–338. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maher B (2008). Personal genomes: The case of missing heritability . Nature , 456 , 18–21. doi: 10.1038/456018a. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mancilla-Martinez J, & Lesaux N (2010). Predictors of reading comprehension for struggling readers: The case of Spanish-speaking language minority children . Journal of Educational Psychology , 102 ( 3 ), 701–711. 10.1037/a0019135. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marinus E, Mostard M, Segers E, Schubert TM, Madelaine A, & Wheldall K (2016). A special font for people with dyslexia: Does it work and, if so, why? Dyslexia , 22 ( 3 ), 233–244. doi: 10.1002/dys.1527 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marulis LM, & Neuman SB (2010). The effects of vocabulary intervention on young children’s word learning: A meta-analysis . Review of Educational Research , 80 ( 3 ), 300–335. doi: 10.3102/0034654310377087 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Melby-Lervåg M, Redick TS, & Hulme C (2016). Working memory training does not improve performance on measures of intelligence or other measures of “far transfer” evidence from a meta-analytic review . Perspectives on Psychological Science , 11 ( 4 ), 512–534. doi: 10.1177/1745691616635612 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miciak J, & Fletcher JM (2020). The critical role of instructional response for identifying dyslexia and other learning disabilities . Journal of Learning Disabilities . Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0022219420906801 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nation K, & Castles A (2017). Putting the learning into orthographic learning . Theories of reading development , 148–168. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). National reading panel—Teaching children to read: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Pub. No. 00-4754) . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• National Institute for Literacy (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel . Retrieved at https://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPReport09.pdf
• Neuman SB, & Kaefer T (2018). Developing low-income children’s vocabulary and content knowledge through a shared book reading program . Contemporary Educational Psychology , 52 , 15–24. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.12.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Olson R & Datta H (2002). Visual-temporal processing in reading-disabled and normal twins . Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal , 15 ( 1-2 ), 127–149. [ Google Scholar ]
• Palinscar AS, & Duke NK (2004). The role of text and text-reader interactions in young children’s reading development and achievement . The Elementary School Journal , 105 ( 2 ), 183–197. doi: 10.1086/428864 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton-Terry N, Connor CM, Thomas-Tate S, & Love M (2010). Examining relationships among dialect variation, literacy skills, and school context in first grade . Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research , 53 ( 1 ), 126–145. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0058) [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peng P, Fuchs D, Fuchs LS, Elleman AM, Kearns DM, Gilbert JK, … & Patton S III (2019). A longitudinal analysis of the trajectories and predictors of word reading and reading comprehension development among at-risk readers . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 52 , 195–208. 10.1177/00222194188090 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pennington BF, Santerre-Lemmon L, Rosenberg J, MacDonald B, Boada R, et al. (2012). Individual prediction of dyslexia by single versus multiple deficit models . Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 121 , 212–224. doi: 10.1037/a0025823 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perfetti C (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension . Scientific Studies of Reading , 11 ( 4 ), 357–383. 10.1080/10888430701530730 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perfetti CA (1992). The representation problems in reading acquisition. In Gough PB, Ehri LC, & Treiman R (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 145–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters JL, De Losa L, Bavin EL, & Crewther SG (2019). Efficacy of dynamic visuo-attentional interventions for reading in dyslexic and neurotypical children: A systematic review . Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews , 100 , 58–76. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.02.015 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Phillips BM, Connor CM, Lonigan CJ, Willis KB, & Crowe E (presented 2016, July). Supporting language and comprehension in second grade: Results from a Tier 2 efficacy trial. Presentation at Annual Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading , Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Porto, Portugal. [ Google Scholar ]
• Protopapas A (2014). From temporal processing to developmental language disorders: Mind the gap . Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 369 ( 1634 ), 20130090. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rack JP, Snowling MJ, & Olson RK (1992). The nonword reading deficit in developmental dyslexia: A review . Reading Research Quarterly , 27 ( 1 ), 28–53. doi: 10.2307/747832 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rayner K, Foorman BR, Perfetti CA, Pesetsky D, & Seidenberg MS (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading . Psychological Science in the Public Interest , 2 ( 2 ), 31–74. doi: 10.1111/1529-1006.00004 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reutzel DR, Petscher Y, & Spichtig AN (2012). Exploring the value added of a guided, silent reading intervention: Effects on struggling third-grade readers’ achievement . The Journal of Educational Research , 105 ( 6 ), 404–415. 10.1080/00220671.2011.629693 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ritchey KD, & Goeke JL (2006). Orton-Gillingham and Orton-Gillingham—based reading instruction: A review of the literature . The Journal of Special Education , 40 ( 3 ), 171–183. 10.1177/00224669060400030501 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sabatini JP, Sawaki Y, Shore JR, & Scarborough HS (2010). Relationships among reading skills of adults with low literacy . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 43 , 122–138. 10.1177/0022219409359343 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sarama J, Clements DH, Wolfe CB, & Spitler ME (2012). Longitudinal evaluation of a scale-up model for teaching mathematics with trajectories and technologies . Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness , 5 , 105–135. 10.3102/0002831212469270 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Savage R, Georgiou G, Parrila R, & Maiorino K (2018). Preventative reading interventions teaching direct mapping of graphemes in texts and set-for-variability aid at-risk learners . Scientific Studies of Reading , 22 ( 3 ), 225–247. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2018.1427753 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schneider M (2018, December 17). A more systematic approach to replicating research . Institute of Education Sciences. https://ies.ed.gov/director/remarks/12-17-2018.asp [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwartz S (2019, December). The most popular reading programs aren't backed by science . Retrieved from EDWeek https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2019/12/04/the-most-popular-reading-programs-arent-backed.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Scruggs TE, Mastropieri MA, & McDuffie KA (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A meta-synthesis of qualitative research . Exceptional Children , 73 ( 4 ), 392–416. 10.1177/001440290707300401 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seidenberg MS (2005). Connectionist models of word reading . Current Directions in Psychological Science , 14 ( 5 ), 238–242. 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00372.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Selzam S, Dale PS, Wagner RK, DeFries JC, Cederlöf M, O’Reilly PF, … & Plomin R (2017). Genome-wide polygenic scores predict reading performance throughout the school years . Scientific Studies of Reading , 21 ( 4 ), 334–349.doi: 10.1080/10888438.2017.1299152 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seymour PH, Aro M, & Erskine JM (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in european orthographies . British Journal of Psychology , 94 ( 2 ), 143–174. doi: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/10.1348/000712603321661859 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shanahan T, Callison K, Carriere C, Duke NK, Pearson PD, Schatschneider C, & Torgesen J (2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd grade: A practice guide (NCEE 2010-4038) . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/readingcomp_pg_092810.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Share DL (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition . Cognition , 55 , 151–218. 10.1016/0010-0277(94)00645-2 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Slavin RE (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research . Educational Researcher , 31 , 15–21. 10.3102/0013189x031007015 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith (1971). Understanding Reading . New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smolen P, Zhang Y, & Byrne JH (2016). The right time to learn: mechanisms and optimization of spaced learning . Nature Reviews Neuroscience , 17 ( 2 ), 77–88. 10.1038/nrn.2015.18 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich KE (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency . Reading Research Quarterly , 16 ( 1 ), 32–71. DOI: 10.2307/747348 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich KE (1990). Concepts in developmental theories of reading skill: Cognitive resources, automaticity, and modularity . Developmental Review , 10 ( 1 ), 72–100. 10.1016/0273-2297(90)90005-O [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich KE (1991). Word recognition: Changing perspectives. In Barr R, Kamil ML, Mosenthal PB, & Pearson PD (Eds.), Handbook of reading research , Vol. 2 (p. 418–452). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich KE (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers . Guilford Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich (2003). Understanding the styles of science in the study of reading . Scientific Studies of Reading , 7 ( 2 ), 105–126, 10.1207/S1532799XSSR0702_1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich KE, & Siegel LS (1994). Phenotypic performance profile of children with reading disabilities: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference model . Journal of Educational Psychology , 86 ( 1 ), 24–53. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.24 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steacy LM, Compton DL, Petscher Y, Elliott JD, Smith K, Rueckl JG, Sawi O, Frost SJ, & Pugh K (2019a). Development and prediction of context-dependent vowel pronunciation in elementary readers . Scientific Studies of Reading , 23 ( 1 ), 49–63. 10.1080/10888438.2018.1466303 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steacy LM, Wade-Woolley L, Rueckl JG, Pugh KR, Elliott JD, & Compton DL (2019b). The role of set for variability in irregular word reading: Word and child predictors in typically developing readers and students at-risk for reading disabilities . Scientific Studies of Reading , 23 ( 6 ), 523–532. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2019.1620749 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stein J (2019). The current status of the magnocellular theory of developmental dyslexia . Neuropsychologia , 130 , 66–77. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.03.022 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Storch S, & Whitehurst GR (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal, structural model . Developmental Psychology , 38 , 934–947 10.1037/0012-1649.38.6.934 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Strong GK, Torgerson CJ, Torgerson D, & Hulme C (2011). A systematic meta-analytic review of evidence for the effectiveness of the 'fast ForWord' language intervention program . Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 52 ( 3 ), 224–235. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02329.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Suggate SP (2016). A meta-analysis of the long-term effect of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and reading comprehension analyses . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 49 , 77–96. 10.1177/0022219414528540 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tallal P (1984). Temporal or phonetic processing deficit in dyslexia? That is the question . Applied Psycholinguistics , 5 ( 2 ), 167–169. 10.1017/S0142716400004963 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Therrien WJ (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading: A meta-analysis . Remedial and Special Education , 25 , 253–261. 10.1177/07419325040250040801 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson PA, Hulme C, Nash HM, Gooch D, Hayiou-Thomas E & Snowling MJ (2015). Developmental dyslexia: Predicting risk . Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 56 , 976–987. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12412 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Torgesen JK (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 15 ( 1 ), 55–64. doi: 10.1207/SLDRP1501_6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Torgesen JK, Alexander AW, Wagner RK, Rashotte CA, Voeller KK, & Conway T (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 34 ( 1 ), 33–58. doi: 10.1177/002221940103400104 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tunmer WE, & Chapman JW (2012). Does set for variability mediate the influence of vocabulary knowledge on the development of word recognition skills? Scientific Studies of Reading , 16 ( 2 ), 122–140. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2010.542527 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vadasy PF, Nelson JR, & Sanders EA (2011). Longer term effects of a tier 2 kindergarten vocabulary intervention for English learners . Remedial and Special Education , 34 , 91–101. 10.1177/0741932511420739 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vadasy PF, & Sanders EA (2013). Two-year follow-up of a code-oriented intervention for lower-skilled first graders: The influence of language status and word reading skills on third-grade literacy outcomes . Reading & Writing , 26 , 821–843. 10.1007/s11145-012-9393-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van IJzendoorn MH, & Bus AG (1994). Meta-analytic confirmation of the nonword reading deficit in developmental dyslexia . Reading Research Quarterly , 3 , 267–275. 10.2307/747877 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaughn S, Martinez LR, Wanzek J, Roberts G, Swanson E, & Fall AM (2017). Improving content knowledge and comprehension for English language learners: Findings from a randomized control trial . Journal of Educational Psychology , 109 , 22–34. 10.1037/edu0000069 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vellutino FR, Scanlon DM, Sipay ER, Small SG, Pratt A, Chen R, & Denckla MB (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability . Journal of Educational Psychology 88 , 601–638. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.88.4.601 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vellutino FR, Tunmer WE, Jaccard J, & Chen S (2007). Components of reading ability: Multivariate evidence for a convergent skills model of reading development . Scientific Studies of Reading , 11 , 3–32. DOI: 10.1080/10888430709336632 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Venezky RL (1999). The American way of spelling: The structure and origins of American English Orthography . New York, NY: Guilford Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Verhoeven L, & van Leeuwe J (2008). Prediction of the development of reading comprehension: A longitudinal study . Applied Cognitive Psychology , 22 , 407–423. 10.1002/acp.1414 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wade-Woolley L (2016). Prosodic and phonemic awareness in children’s reading of long and short words . Reading and Writing , 29 , 371–382. 10.1007/s11145-015-9600-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner RK, Edwards AA, Malkowski A, Schatschneider C, Joyner RE, Wood S, Zirps FA (2019). Combining old and new for better understanding and predicting dyslexia . New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development , 165 , 1–11. doi: 10.1002/cad.20289 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner RK, Francis DJ, & Morris RD (2005). Identifying English language learners with learning disabilities: Key challenges and possible approaches . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 20 ( 1 ), 6–15. 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00115.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner RK, Muse AE, & Tannenbaum KR (2007). Promising avenues for better understanding implications of vocabulary development for reading comprehension. In Wagner R. Muse A, Tannenbaum K (Eds). Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension . New York: Guilford Press. pp. 276–291. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner RK, & Stanovich KE (1996). Expertise in reading. In Ericsson KA (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games (pp. 189–225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner RK, & Torgesen JK (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills . Psychological Bulletin , 101 , 192–212. 10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.192 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner R, Torgesen J, & Rashotte C (1994). Development of reading-related phonological processing abilities: New evidence of bidirectional causality from a latent variable longitudinal study . Developmental Psychology , 30 , 73–87. 10.1037/0012-1649.30.1.73 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wanzek J, Vaughn S, Scammacca N, Gatlin B, Walker MA, & Capin P (2016). Meta-analyses of the effects of Tier 2 type reading interventions in grades K-3 . Educational Psychology Review , 28 , 551–576. 10.1007/s10648-015-9321-7 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wanzek J, Vaughn S, Scammacca NK, Metz K, Murray CS, Roberts G, & Danielson L (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after Grade 3 . Review of Educational Research , 83 , 163–195. 10.3102/0034654313477212 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wasik BA, & Hindman AH (2020). Increasing preschoolers’ vocabulary development through a streamlined teacher professional development intervention . Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 50 , 101–113. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.11.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Welsch JG, Powell JJ, & Robnolt VJ (2019). Getting to the core of close reading: What do we really know and what remains to be seen? Reading Psychology , 40 ( 1 ), 95–116. 10.1080/02702711.2019.1571544 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Whitehurst GJ & Lonigan CJ (1998). Child development and emergent literacy . Child Development , 69 , 848–872. 10.2307/1132208 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams JP, Pollini S, Nubla-Kung AM, Snyder AE, Garcia A, Ordynans JG, & Atkins JG (2014). An intervention to improve comprehension of cause/effect through expository text structure instruction . Journal of Educational Psychology , 106 , 1–17. doi: 10.1037/a0033215 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ziegler J, & Goswami U (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory . Psychological Bulletin , 131 ( 1 ), 3–29. 10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.3 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ziegler J, Stone G, & Jacobs A (1997). What is the pronunciation for –ough and the spelling for /u/? A database for computing feedforward and feedback consistence in English . Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers , 29 ( 4 ), 600–618. 10.3758/BF03210615 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zipke M (2016). The importance of flexibility of pronunciation in learning to decode: A training study in set for variability . First Language , 36 ( 1 ), 71–86. doi: 10.1177/0142723716639495 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Loading metrics

Open Access

Ten simple rules for reading a scientific paper

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Division of Infectious Diseases and International Health, Department of Medicine, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia, United States of America

• Maureen A. Carey, 
• Kevin L. Steiner, 
• William A. Petri Jr

Published: July 30, 2020

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008032
• Reader Comments

Citation: Carey MA, Steiner KL, Petri WA Jr (2020) Ten simple rules for reading a scientific paper. PLoS Comput Biol 16(7): e1008032. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008032

Editor: Scott Markel, Dassault Systemes BIOVIA, UNITED STATES

Copyright: © 2020 Carey et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: MAC was supported by the PhRMA Foundation's Postdoctoral Fellowship in Translational Medicine and Therapeutics and the University of Virginia's Engineering-in-Medicine seed grant, and KLS was supported by the NIH T32 Global Biothreats Training Program at the University of Virginia (AI055432). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

“There is no problem that a library card can't solve” according to author Eleanor Brown [ 1 ]. This advice is sound, probably for both life and science, but even the best tool (like the library) is most effective when accompanied by instructions and a basic understanding of how and when to use it.

For many budding scientists, the first day in a new lab setting often involves a stack of papers, an email full of links to pertinent articles, or some promise of a richer understanding so long as one reads enough of the scientific literature. However, the purpose and approach to reading a scientific article is unlike that of reading a news story, novel, or even a textbook and can initially seem unapproachable. Having good habits for reading scientific literature is key to setting oneself up for success, identifying new research questions, and filling in the gaps in one’s current understanding; developing these good habits is the first crucial step.

Advice typically centers around two main tips: read actively and read often. However, active reading, or reading with an intent to understand, is both a learned skill and a level of effort. Although there is no one best way to do this, we present 10 simple rules, relevant to novices and seasoned scientists alike, to teach our strategy for active reading based on our experience as readers and as mentors of undergraduate and graduate researchers, medical students, fellows, and early career faculty. Rules 1–5 are big picture recommendations. Rules 6–8 relate to philosophy of reading. Rules 9–10 guide the “now what?” questions one should ask after reading and how to integrate what was learned into one’s own science.

Rule 1: Pick your reading goal

What you want to get out of an article should influence your approach to reading it. Table 1 includes a handful of example intentions and how you might prioritize different parts of the same article differently based on your goals as a reader.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008032.t001

Rule 2: Understand the author’s goal

In written communication, the reader and the writer are equally important. Both influence the final outcome: in this case, your scientific understanding! After identifying your goal, think about the author’s goal for sharing this project. This will help you interpret the data and understand the author’s interpretation of the data. However, this requires some understanding of who the author(s) are (e.g., what are their scientific interests?), the scientific field in which they work (e.g., what techniques are available in this field?), and how this paper fits into the author’s research (e.g., is this work building on an author’s longstanding project or controversial idea?). This information may be hard to glean without experience and a history of reading. But don’t let this be a discouragement to starting the process; it is by the act of reading that this experience is gained!

A good step toward understanding the goal of the author(s) is to ask yourself: What kind of article is this? Journals publish different types of articles, including methods, review, commentary, resources, and research articles as well as other types that are specific to a particular journal or groups of journals. These article types have different formatting requirements and expectations for content. Knowing the article type will help guide your evaluation of the information presented. Is the article a methods paper, presenting a new technique? Is the article a review article, intended to summarize a field or problem? Is it a commentary, intended to take a stand on a controversy or give a big picture perspective on a problem? Is it a resource article, presenting a new tool or data set for others to use? Is it a research article, written to present new data and the authors’ interpretation of those data? The type of paper, and its intended purpose, will get you on your way to understanding the author’s goal.

Rule 3: Ask six questions

When reading, ask yourself: (1) What do the author(s) want to know (motivation)? (2) What did they do (approach/methods)? (3) Why was it done that way (context within the field)? (4) What do the results show (figures and data tables)? (5) How did the author(s) interpret the results (interpretation/discussion)? (6) What should be done next? (Regarding this last question, the author(s) may provide some suggestions in the discussion, but the key is to ask yourself what you think should come next.)

Each of these questions can and should be asked about the complete work as well as each table, figure, or experiment within the paper. Early on, it can take a long time to read one article front to back, and this can be intimidating. Break down your understanding of each section of the work with these questions to make the effort more manageable.

Rule 4: Unpack each figure and table

Scientists write original research papers primarily to present new data that may change or reinforce the collective knowledge of a field. Therefore, the most important parts of this type of scientific paper are the data. Some people like to scrutinize the figures and tables (including legends) before reading any of the “main text”: because all of the important information should be obtained through the data. Others prefer to read through the results section while sequentially examining the figures and tables as they are addressed in the text. There is no correct or incorrect approach: Try both to see what works best for you. The key is making sure that one understands the presented data and how it was obtained.

For each figure, work to understand each x- and y-axes, color scheme, statistical approach (if one was used), and why the particular plotting approach was used. For each table, identify what experimental groups and variables are presented. Identify what is shown and how the data were collected. This is typically summarized in the legend or caption but often requires digging deeper into the methods: Do not be afraid to refer back to the methods section frequently to ensure a full understanding of how the presented data were obtained. Again, ask the questions in Rule 3 for each figure or panel and conclude with articulating the “take home” message.

Rule 5: Understand the formatting intentions

Just like the overall intent of the article (discussed in Rule 2), the intent of each section within a research article can guide your interpretation. Some sections are intended to be written as objective descriptions of the data (i.e., the Results section), whereas other sections are intended to present the author’s interpretation of the data. Remember though that even “objective” sections are written by and, therefore, influenced by the authors interpretations. Check out Table 2 to understand the intent of each section of a research article. When reading a specific paper, you can also refer to the journal’s website to understand the formatting intentions. The “For Authors” section of a website will have some nitty gritty information that is less relevant for the reader (like word counts) but will also summarize what the journal editors expect in each section. This will help to familiarize you with the goal of each article section.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008032.t002

Rule 6: Be critical

Published papers are not truths etched in stone. Published papers in high impact journals are not truths etched in stone. Published papers by bigwigs in the field are not truths etched in stone. Published papers that seem to agree with your own hypothesis or data are not etched in stone. Published papers that seem to refute your hypothesis or data are not etched in stone.

Science is a never-ending work in progress, and it is essential that the reader pushes back against the author’s interpretation to test the strength of their conclusions. Everyone has their own perspective and may interpret the same data in different ways. Mistakes are sometimes published, but more often these apparent errors are due to other factors such as limitations of a methodology and other limits to generalizability (selection bias, unaddressed, or unappreciated confounders). When reading a paper, it is important to consider if these factors are pertinent.

Critical thinking is a tough skill to learn but ultimately boils down to evaluating data while minimizing biases. Ask yourself: Are there other, equally likely, explanations for what is observed? In addition to paying close attention to potential biases of the study or author(s), a reader should also be alert to one’s own preceding perspective (and biases). Take time to ask oneself: Do I find this paper compelling because it affirms something I already think (or wish) is true? Or am I discounting their findings because it differs from what I expect or from my own work?

The phenomenon of a self-fulfilling prophecy, or expectancy, is well studied in the psychology literature [ 2 ] and is why many studies are conducted in a “blinded” manner [ 3 ]. It refers to the idea that a person may assume something to be true and their resultant behavior aligns to make it true. In other words, as humans and scientists, we often find exactly what we are looking for. A scientist may only test their hypotheses and fail to evaluate alternative hypotheses; perhaps, a scientist may not be aware of alternative, less biased ways to test her or his hypothesis that are typically used in different fields. Individuals with different life, academic, and work experiences may think of several alternative hypotheses, all equally supported by the data.

Rule 7: Be kind

The author(s) are human too. So, whenever possible, give them the benefit of the doubt. An author may write a phrase differently than you would, forcing you to reread the sentence to understand it. Someone in your field may neglect to cite your paper because of a reference count limit. A figure panel may be misreferenced as Supplemental Fig 3E when it is obviously Supplemental Fig 4E. While these things may be frustrating, none are an indication that the quality of work is poor. Try to avoid letting these minor things influence your evaluation and interpretation of the work.

Similarly, if you intend to share your critique with others, be extra kind. An author (especially the lead author) may invest years of their time into a single paper. Hearing a kindly phrased critique can be difficult but constructive. Hearing a rude, brusque, or mean-spirited critique can be heartbreaking, especially for young scientists or those seeking to establish their place within a field and who may worry that they do not belong.

Rule 8: Be ready to go the extra mile

To truly understand a scientific work, you often will need to look up a term, dig into the supplemental materials, or read one or more of the cited references. This process takes time. Some advisors recommend reading an article three times: The first time, simply read without the pressure of understanding or critiquing the work. For the second time, aim to understand the paper. For the third read through, take notes.

Some people engage with a paper by printing it out and writing all over it. The reader might write question marks in the margins to mark parts (s)he wants to return to, circle unfamiliar terms (and then actually look them up!), highlight or underline important statements, and draw arrows linking figures and the corresponding interpretation in the discussion. Not everyone needs a paper copy to engage in the reading process but, whatever your version of “printing it out” is, do it.

Rule 9: Talk about it

Talking about an article in a journal club or more informal environment forces active reading and participation with the material. Studies show that teaching is one of the best ways to learn and that teachers learn the material even better as the teaching task becomes more complex [ 4 – 5 ]; anecdotally, such observations inspired the phrase “to teach is to learn twice.”

Beyond formal settings such as journal clubs, lab meetings, and academic classes, discuss papers with your peers, mentors, and colleagues in person or electronically. Twitter and other social media platforms have become excellent resources for discussing papers with other scientists, the public or your nonscientist friends, or even the paper’s author(s). Describing a paper can be done at multiple levels and your description can contain all of the scientific details, only the big picture summary, or perhaps the implications for the average person in your community. All of these descriptions will solidify your understanding, while highlighting gaps in your knowledge and informing those around you.

Rule 10: Build on it

One approach we like to use for communicating how we build on the scientific literature is by starting research presentations with an image depicting a wall of Lego bricks. Each brick is labeled with the reference for a paper, and the wall highlights the body of literature on which the work is built. We describe the work and conclusions of each paper represented by a labeled brick and discuss each brick and the wall as a whole. The top brick on the wall is left blank: We aspire to build on this work and label this brick with our own work. We then delve into our own research, discoveries, and the conclusions it inspires. We finish our presentations with the image of the Legos and summarize our presentation on that empty brick.

Whether you are reading an article to understand a new topic area or to move a research project forward, effective learning requires that you integrate knowledge from multiple sources (“click” those Lego bricks together) and build upwards. Leveraging published work will enable you to build a stronger and taller structure. The first row of bricks is more stable once a second row is assembled on top of it and so on and so forth. Moreover, the Lego construction will become taller and larger if you build upon the work of others, rather than using only your own bricks.

Build on the article you read by thinking about how it connects to ideas described in other papers and within own work, implementing a technique in your own research, or attempting to challenge or support the hypothesis of the author(s) with a more extensive literature review. Integrate the techniques and scientific conclusions learned from an article into your own research or perspective in the classroom or research lab. You may find that this process strengthens your understanding, leads you toward new and unexpected interests or research questions, or returns you back to the original article with new questions and critiques of the work. All of these experiences are part of the “active reading”: process and are signs of a successful reading experience.

In summary, practice these rules to learn how to read a scientific article, keeping in mind that this process will get easier (and faster) with experience. We are firm believers that an hour in the library will save a week at the bench; this diligent practice will ultimately make you both a more knowledgeable and productive scientist. As you develop the skills to read an article, try to also foster good reading and learning habits for yourself (recommendations here: [ 6 ] and [ 7 ], respectively) and in others. Good luck and happy reading!

Acknowledgments

Thank you to the mentors, teachers, and students who have shaped our thoughts on reading, learning, and what science is all about.

• 1. Brown E. The Weird Sisters. G. P. Putnam’s Sons; 2011.
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Research: More People Use Mental Health Benefits When They Hear That Colleagues Use Them Too

• Laura M. Giurge,
• Lauren C. Howe,
• Zsofia Belovai,
• Guusje Lindemann,
• Sharon O’Connor

A study of 2,400 Novartis employees around the world found that simply hearing about others’ struggles can normalize accessing support at work.

Novartis has trained more than 1,000 employees as Mental Health First Aiders to offer peer-to-peer support for their colleagues. While employees were eager for the training, uptake of the program remains low. To understand why, a team of researchers conducted a randomized controlled trial with 2,400 Novartis employees who worked in the UK, Ireland, India, and Malaysia. Employees were shown one of six framings that were designed to overcome two key barriers: privacy concerns and usage concerns. They found that employees who read a story about their colleague using the service were more likely to sign up to learn more about the program, and that emphasizing the anonymity of the program did not seem to have an impact. Their findings suggest that one way to encourage employees to make use of existing mental health resources is by creating a supportive culture that embraces sharing about mental health challenges at work.

“I almost scheduled an appointment about a dozen times. But no, in the end I never went. I just wasn’t sure if my problems were big enough to warrant help and I didn’t want to take up someone else’s time unnecessarily.”

• Laura M. Giurge is an assistant professor at the London School of Economics, and a faculty affiliate at London Business School. Her research focuses on time and boundaries in organizations, workplace well-being, and the future of work. She is also passionate about translating research to the broader public through interactive and creative keynote talks, workshops, and coaching. Follow her on LinkedIn  here .
• Lauren C. Howe is an assistant professor in management at the University of Zurich. As head of research at the Center for Leadership in the Future of Work , she focuses on how human aspects, such as mindsets, socioemotional skills, and leadership, play a role in the changing world of work.
• Zsofia Belovai is a behavioral science lead for the organizational performance research practice at MoreThanNow, focusing on exploring how employee welfare can drive KPIs.
• Guusje Lindemann is a senior behavioral scientist at MoreThanNow, in the social impact and organizational performance practices, working on making the workplace better for all.
• Sharon O’Connor is the global employee wellbeing lead at Novartis. She is a founding member of the Wellbeing Executives Council of The Conference Board, and a guest lecturer on the Workplace Wellness postgraduate certificate at Trinity College Dublin.

Partner Center

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Many Americans find value in getting news on social media, but concerns about inaccuracy have risen

Social media plays a crucial role in Americans’ news consumption . Half of all U.S. adults say they at least sometimes get news there, according to a 2023 Pew Research Center survey .

Those who get news on social media name a variety of things that they like about it, including convenience, speed and the element of social interaction. But some social media news consumers also express concerns about news there being inaccurate, low quality and politically biased. The share who say inaccuracy is the aspect they dislike most has increased from 31% to 40% in the past five years.

These findings come from a broader Center survey of U.S. adults’ news habits . The survey asked Americans who get news on social media to describe – in their own words – the things they like and dislike most about getting news there. Their responses were then sorted into categories.

Pew Research Center asked two open-ended questions about what people like and dislike most about getting news on social media as part of a survey on U.S. adults’ news habits. The survey of 8,842 U.S. adults was conducted from Sept. 25 to Oct. 1, 2023.

Everyone who completed the survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the  ATP’s methodology .

We asked all respondents who say they get news on social media to answer the open-ended questions. Responses were manually coded into categories. In total, we coded 4,507 open-end responses on what respondents like the most and 4,453 responses on what respondents dislike the most.

Here are the  questions used for the fall 2023 survey , along with responses, and its  methodology .

We asked whether Americans prefer social media or news outlets for various types of information on a separate ATP survey conducted March 20-26, 2023, among 3,576 U.S. adults. Here are the questions used for the spring 2023 survey , along with responses, and its  methodology .

Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts, its primary funder. This is the latest report in Pew Research Center’s ongoing investigation of the state of news, information and journalism in the digital age, a research program funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts, with generous support from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

What Americans like about getting news on social media

The aspects of getting news on social media that Americans value have not changed much since 2018 , the last time we asked these questions. Convenience remains the top thing people like most about getting news on social media. One-in-five social media news consumers say this, with responses such as “It’s at my fingertips,” “I can easily get it” and “It’s available all the time and anywhere.”

Another 9% say they like the speed with which they can get news there, describing news on social media as “fast and to the point” and “quick and easy to digest.”

Smaller shares say they like interaction with others , the up-to-date nature of the news, the content or format , and the variety of sources and stories .

Meanwhile, 7% of Americans who get news on social media say they don’t like anything about the experience, and an additional 32% did not offer a response.

What Americans dislike about getting news on social media

Many social media news consumers also see downsides to getting news this way. Four-in-ten Americans who get news from social media say inaccuracy is the thing they dislike most about it – an increase of 9 percentage points since 2018. This category of responses includes concerns about unverified facts, misinformation, “fake news” and unreliable sources.

A much smaller share of social media news consumers (8%) say they dislike the low quality of news there, with some giving clickbait or a lack of in-depth coverage as examples. Others say the news on social media is too biased or political (6%) or they don’t like the way people behave there (5%).

Another 1% of social media news consumers say censorship is what they dislike most. This category – which we used for the first time in the 2023 survey – includes responses such as “Too much censorship by the sites” and “I really dislike when some of my view points are removed.” There are no significant differences in the shares of Democratic and Republican social media news consumers who say they’re concerned about news censorship on social media. In fact, there are no partisan differences within any of these complaint categories.

Just 4% of respondents say they don’t dislike anything about getting news on social media. Another 31% did not answer the question.

Social media posts versus news outlets: Which do Americans prefer for certain types of information?

The perceived downsides of getting news on social media may help explain why many Americans prefer to go directly to news outlets instead. In a separate Center survey, U.S. adults who say they at least sometimes get news on social media were asked whether they prefer reading social media posts or going directly to news outlets for five different types of information. Those types of information include the basic facts about an issue or event as well as in-depth information and opinions on it.

Americans prefer to get four of the five types of information from news outlets over social media. However, a substantial share say they like getting each type of information from news outlets and social media about the same.

For example, 45% of respondents say they prefer news outlets for getting the most in-depth information about an issue or event, while only 11% prefer social media posts for this. An additional 34% say they value both sources equally, while 8% say they prefer neither option.

Social media news consumers also tend to prefer news outlets over social media to get:

• The basic facts about an issue or event (39% vs. 14%)
• Up-to-date information about an event as it is happening (34% vs. 21%)
• Information about how an issue or event impacts them (31% vs. 15%)

In each of these cases, roughly four-in-ten or more say they like social media and news outlets about the same.

In contrast, equal shares of Americans prefer news outlets and social media when it comes to opinions on an issue (22% each).

Previous Center research has shown that younger Americans are more likely than older Americans to prefer getting news from social media , and that pattern also appears in the findings of this survey. Adults under 30 express a clear preference for using social media over news outlets to get opinions on an issue (36% vs. 13%) and up-to-date information as an event is happening (35% vs. 21%). Americans ages 65 and older are much more likely to prefer news outlets over social media for every type of information we asked about. 

• Digital News Landscape
• Media Industry
• News Habits & Media
• Social Media & the News

Luxuan Wang is a research associate at Pew Research Center

Naomi Forman-Katz is a research analyst focusing on news and information research at Pew Research Center

Introducing the Pew-Knight Initiative

News platform fact sheet, a profile of the top-ranked podcasts in the u.s., most u.s. journalists are concerned about press freedoms, nearly a quarter of americans get news from podcasts, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

New Group Joins the Political Fight Over Disinformation Online

The group intends to fight what its leader, Nina Jankowicz, and others have described as a coordinated campaign by conservatives and their allies to undermine researchers who study disinformation.

By Steven Lee Myers and Jim Rutenberg

Two years ago, Nina Jankowicz briefly led an agency at the Department of Homeland Security created to fight disinformation — the establishment of which provoked a political and legal battle over the government’s role in policing lies and other harmful content online that continues to reverberate.

Now she has re-entered the fray with a new nonprofit organization intended to fight what she and others have described as a coordinated campaign by conservatives and others to undermine researchers, like her, who study the sources of disinformation.

Already a lightning rod for critics of her work on the subject, Ms. Jankowicz inaugurated the organization with a letter accusing three Republican committee chairmen in the House of Representatives of abusing their subpoena powers to silence think tanks and universities that expose the sources of disinformation.

“These tactics echo the dark days of McCarthyism, but with a frightening 21st-century twist,” she wrote in the letter on Monday with the organization’s co-founder Carlos Álvarez-Aranyos, a public-relations consultant who in 2020 was involved in efforts to defend the integrity of the American voting system.

The inception of the group, the American Sunlight Project, reflects how divisive the issue of identifying and combating disinformation has become as the 2024 presidential election approaches. It also represents a tacit admission that the informal networks formed at major universities and research organizations to address the explosion of disinformation online have failed to mount a substantial defense against a campaign, waged largely on the right, depicting their work as part of an effort to silence conservatives.

Taking place in the courts, in conservative media and on the Republican-led House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, the campaign has largely succeeded in eviscerating efforts to monitor disinformation, especially around the integrity of the American election system.

Many of the nation’s most prominent researchers, facing lawsuits, subpoenas and physical threats, have pulled back.

“More and more researchers were getting swept up by this, and their institutions weren’t either allowing them to respond or responding in a way that really just was not rising to meet the moment,” Ms. Jankowicz said in an interview. “And the problem with that, obviously, is that if we don’t push back on these campaigns, then that’s the prevailing narrative.”

That narrative is prevailing at a time when social media companies have abandoned or cut back efforts to enforce their own policies against certain types of content.

Many experts have warned that the problem of false or misleading content is only going to increase with the advent of artificial intelligence.

“Disinformation will remain an issue as long as the strategic gains of engaging in it, promoting it and profiting from it outweigh consequences for spreading it,” Common Cause, the nonpartisan public interest group, wrote in a report published last week that warned of a new wave of disinformation around this year’s vote.

Ms. Jankowicz said her group would run advertisements about the broad threats and effects of disinformation and produce investigative reports on the backgrounds and financing of groups conducting disinformation campaigns — including those targeting the researchers.

She has joined with two veteran political strategists: Mr. Álvarez-Aranyos, formerly a communications strategist for Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group that seeks to counter domestic authoritarian threats, and Eddie Vale, formerly of American Bridge, a liberal group devoted to gathering opposition research into Republicans.

The organization’s advisory board includes Katie Harbath, a former Facebook executive who was previously a top digital strategist for Senate Republicans; Ineke Mushovic, a founder of the Movement Advancement Project , a think tank that tracks threats to democracy and gay, lesbian and transgender issues; and Benjamin Wittes, a national security legal expert at the Brookings Institution and editor in chief of Lawfare .

“We need to be a little bit more aggressive about how we think about defending the research community,” Mr. Wittes said in an interview, portraying the attacks against it as part of “a coordinated assault on those who have sought to counter disinformation and election interference.”

In the letter to congressional Republicans, Ms. Jankowicz noted the appearance of a fake robocall in President Biden’s voice discouraging voters in New Hampshire from voting in the state’s primary and artificially generated images of former President Donald J. Trump with Black supporters, as well as renewed efforts by China and Russia to spread disinformation to American audiences.

The American Sunlight Project has been established as a nonprofit under the section of the Internal Revenue Code that allows it greater leeway to lobby than tax-exempt charities known as 501(c)(3)s. It also does not have to disclose its donors, which Ms. Jankowicz declined to do, though she said the project had initial commitments of $1 million in donations.

The budget pales in comparison with those behind the counteroffensive like America First Legal, the Trump-aligned group that, with a war chest in the tens of millions of dollars, has sued researchers at Stanford and the University of Washington over their collaboration with government officials to combat misinformation about voting and Covid-19.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon in a federal lawsuit filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana accusing government agencies of using the researchers as proxies to pressure social media platforms to take down or restrict the reach of accounts.

The idea for the American Sunlight Project grew out of Ms. Jankowicz’s experience in 2022 when she was appointed executive director of a newly created Disinformation Governance Board at the Department of Homeland Security.

From the instant the board became public, it faced fierce criticism portraying it as an Orwellian Ministry of Truth that would censor dissenting voices in violation of the First Amendment, though in reality it had only an advisory role and no enforcement authority.

Ms. Jankowicz, an expert on Russian disinformation who once served as an adviser to Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, stepped down shortly after her appointment. Even then, she faced such a torrent of personal threats online that she hired a security consultant. The board was suspended and then, after a short review, abolished.

“I think we’re existing in an information environment where it is very easy to weaponize information and to make it seem sinister,” Mr. Álvarez-Aranyos said. “And I think we’re looking for transparency. I mean, this is sunlight in the very literal sense.”

Ms. Jankowicz said that she was aware that her involvement with the new group would draw out her critics, but that she was well positioned to lead it because she had already “gone through the worst of it.”

Steven Lee Myers covers misinformation and disinformation from San Francisco. Since joining The Times in 1989, he has reported from around the world, including Moscow, Baghdad, Beijing and Seoul. More about Steven Lee Myers

Jim Rutenberg is a writer at large for The Times and The New York Times Magazine and writes most often about media and politics. More about Jim Rutenberg

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Louisiana’s flagship university lets oil firms influence research – for a price

Louisiana State University allowed Shell to influence studies after a $25m donation and sought funds from other fossil fuel firms

• This story is co-published with the Lens, a non-profit newsroom in New Orleans

For $5m, Louisiana’s flagship university will let an oil company weigh in on faculty research activities. Or, for $100,000, a corporation can participate in a research study, with “robust” reviewing powers and access to all resulting intellectual property.

Those are the conditions outlined in a boilerplate document that Louisiana State University’s fundraising arm circulated to oil majors and chemical companies affiliated with the Louisiana Chemical Association, an industry lobbying group, according to emails disclosed in response to a public records request by the Lens .

Records show that after Shell donated $25m in 2022 to LSU to create the Institute for Energy Innovation, the university gave the fossil fuel corporation license to influence research and coursework for the university’s new concentration in carbon capture, use and storage.

Afterward, LSU’s fundraising entity, the LSU Foundation, used this partnership as a model to shop around to members of the Louisiana Chemical Association, such as ExxonMobil , Air Products and CF Industries, which have proposed carbon capture projects in Louisiana.

For $2m, Exxon became the institute’s first “strategic partner-level donor”, a position that came with robust review of academic study output and with the ability to focus research activities. Another eight companies have discussed similar deals with LSU, according to a partnership update that LSU sent to Shell last summer.

Some students, academics and experts said such relationships raise questions about academic freedom and public trust.

Asked to comment, the Institute for Energy Innovation’s director, Brad Ives, defended the partnerships, as did the oil majors. Two more companies have since entered into partnerships with the Institute for Energy Innovation, said Ives. But Shell is the only company to have donated at the level that gave the company a seat on the advisory board that chooses the institute’s research. The head of the Louisiana Chemical Association and the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association also sit on the advisory board, which can vote to stop a research project from moving forward.

Ives said being able to work with oil and gas companies is “really a key to advancing energy innovation”.

A spokesperson for Shell said: “We’re proud to partner with LSU to contribute to the growing compendium of peer-reviewed climate science and advance the effort to identify multiple pathways that can lead to more energy with fewer emissions.”

An ExxonMobil spokesperson said: “Our collaboration with LSU and the Institute for Energy Innovation includes an allocation for research in carbon capture utilization and storage, as well as advanced recycling studies.”

LSU has long had a close-relationship with oil majors, the names of which hang from buildings and equipment at the university. Nearly 40% of LSU funding comes from the state, which received a good chunk of its revenue from oil and gas activities until the 1980s. In recent years, oil and gas revenue has made up less than 10% of the state budget.

But the new, highly visible partnership with Shell took the closeness a step further, promising corporations voting power over the Institute for Energy Innovation’s research activities in return for their investment.

“I have a hard time seeing a faculty member engaged in legitimate research being eager for an oil company or representative of a chemical company to vote on his or her research agenda,” said Robert Mann, political commentator and former LSU journalism professor . “That is an egregious violation of academic freedom.

“You don’t expect to see it written down like that,” Mann said, after the Lens asked him to review the boilerplate document that outlines what companies can expect in return for their donations to LSU’s Institute for Energy Innovation. It is not appropriate, Mann said, for faculty research to be driven by the decisions of the dean of a university, let alone an outside industry representative. “If you’re a faculty member in that unit you should know that the university is fine with auctioning off your academic freedom,” he said. “That’s what they’re doing.”

Ives of LSU said its Institute for Energy Innovation is no different to similar institutes across the US, including the Texas Bureau of Economic Geology, which performs research supported by corporate donors. “I think researchers saying that somehow having corporate funding for research damages the integrity of that research is a little far-fetched,” Ives said.

Research performed at the institute is subject to the faculty’s individual ethics training and subject to peer-review, he said. “A donor that provided money that goes to the institute isn’t going to be able to influence the outcome of that research in any way.”

Asked about the relationship with the institute and industry, Karsten Thompson, the interim dean of the College of Engineering at LSU said: “To me, it’s not a conflict at all. It’s a partnership because they’re the ones that are going to make the largest initial impacts on reducing CO 2 emissions.”

Some observers, noting that fossil fuel companies have previously shown a vested interest in obscuring scientific conclusions, question the reliability of academic studies sponsored by fossil fuel companies. Exxon, for example, denied the risk of human-caused climate change for decades , noted Jane Patton, an LSU alumna and the US fossil economy campaign manager for the Center for International Environmental Law.

After the Lens asked her to review LSU communication on the matter, Patton said she suspected that fossil fuel companies have had a say in what does and doesn’t get studied in relation to risky endeavors, such as carbon capture, which involves chemically stripping carbon dioxide from industrial emissions and piping it underground. For her, the LSU documents basically proved her fear. “This is the first time I’ve seen actual evidence of it,” Patton said. “This is a gross misuse of the public trust.”

To Patton, the perceived blurring of academic objectivity could not come at a worse time in Louisiana, as the climate crisis makes the state less habitable and housing more expensive . “It’s just disheartening,” she said, “to find that the state’s flagship institution is allowing industry to determine the research agenda. No wonder it’s so hard to find peer-reviewed research about how bad this is.”

Records show that Shell helped to tailor what LSU students would learn in the six courses offered under the institute’s carbon capture, use and storage (CCUS) concentration that debuted a couple years ago. The LSU alumnus Lee Stockwell, Shell’s general manager of CCUS, sat on the search committee for the Energy Institute executive director, served on the petroleum engineering advisory board, and was very involved in shaping the carbon capture curriculum.

Stockwell directed questions about Shell’s partnership with the university to LSU.

Stockwell was not the only oil representative to help design the curriculum. BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil also had representatives on the ad hoc advisory committee that designed carbon capture coursework within the petroleum engineering department, according to a July 2022 email from Thompson . At least one cohort of students took two elective courses at LSU designed by the oil majors and another 10 students were expected to take the full concentration beginning in 2022.

LSU is not alone in this practice, Thompson said. At most engineering departments in the country, an active Industrial Advisory Committee (IAC) weighs in on curricula, so that degrees evolve as technology changes, helping students land internships and jobs.

LSU faculty has not been similarly engaged with renewable energy companies, because oil and gas companies have the resources to tackle the climate crisis now – and are not reliant on future technology, Thompson said. “Renewable energy is much more abstract,” he said. “So, I think that’s the difference. It’s not that we don’t care as much.”

Fossil fuel companies have been finding their way into classrooms for decades, in part to help the industry retain a positive public image in the face of a heating planet.

Some students do not approve of the university’s partnerships with fossil fuel companies, or any financial ties with them.

For a decade now, students across the nation have filed complaints and demanded divestment from fossil fuels and hundreds of institutions have agreed. Locally, the LSU Climate Pelicans, an interdisciplinary group of students, have called for the university to divest endowment funds from the fossil fuel industry.

Inspired by the Climate Pelicans’ work toward divestment, the LSU graduate student Alicia Cerquone, who sits on the LSU’s student senate, sponsored a divestment resolution. The measure passed in a 37-2 vote last year, according to LSU’s student newspaper . Though investment in fossil fuels amounts to only 2 to 3% of the endowment, it’s an important philosophical step, Cerquone said.

Cerquone is also troubled by the influence that industry has on the Institute for Energy Innovation and fears other corporations could control other departments’ curriculums. “These entities are going to have a say in what we pay to learn here,” she said.

The fossil fuel industry has made forays into academia beyond Louisiana. ExxonMobil and Shell have both helped fund a similar Energy Initiative at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where the highest-level donors can have an office on MIT’s campus, according to Inside Climate News . In 2021, Exxon funded and co-wrote a research paper with MIT researchers with conclusions that supported the argument for federal subsidies for carbon capture and use.

This story is co published with the Lens , a non-profit newsroom in New Orleans and part of its Captured Audience series, which is supported by a grant from the Fund for Investigative Journalism

• Oil and gas companies
• Big oil uncovered
• US universities
• US education
• Climate crisis
• Energy industry

Most viewed

Watch CBS News

What is cloud seeding and did it play any role in the Dubai floods?

By Li Cohen , Tracy J. Wholf

Updated on: April 18, 2024 / 8:46 PM EDT / CBS News

Stranded airline passengers and a cat submerged in floodwaters clinging to a car door handle became notable moments this week in Dubai as the normally arid city was inundated with historic levels of rain. Claims have gone viral that the deluge was brought on by cloud seeding, a technique that aims to increase precipitation, that is heavily utilized in the United Arab Emirates. 

But is it really to blame? 

Daniel Swain , a climate scientist at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that getting to the bottom of the "record-shattering extreme rainfall" requires breaking down the science behind the event and the technique. 

"There's currently a disconnect in the online discourse between the kind of human activities that likely did affect it (greenhouse warming) versus those which have actually been the focus of the online conversation thus far (cloud seeding), and what this means for how we collectively understand our ability to actively affect the weather on different spatial and temporal scales," he said in an emailed statement. 

What is cloud seeding? 

Many have questioned since the downpour in Dubai whether cloud seeding was to blame. But what is cloud seeding and how does it work exactly?

Cloud seeding is a technique used to improve precipitation. According to the Desert Research Institute, scientists do this by putting tiny particles called nuclei into the atmosphere that attach to clouds.

"These nuclei provide a base for snowflakes to form. After cloud seeding takes place, the newly formed snowflakes quickly grow and fall from the clouds back to the surface of the Earth, increasing snowpack and streamflow," the institute says. 

In the Middle East, instead of precipitation in the form of snow, its cloud seeding program generates increased rain. 

Scientists typically go about cloud seeding in two ways – using either generators on the ground or distributing the nuclei via aircraft. 

What caused the rain in Dubai? 

But was the rain in Dubai from cloud seeding? 

"Did cloud seeding play a role? Likely no," Swain said. "But how about climate change? Likely yes!" 

The world is continuing to see month after month of record-breaking heat and 2023 was the hottest year globally ever recorded. Scientists have found that warmer temperatures increase evaporation, resulting in more frequent and intense storms, such as the one that occurred in Dubai. Those conditions also fuel other extreme weather events, including droughts , putting opposing forces at intense odds that will likely strain communities without adequate adaptation. 

Andrew Kruczkiewicz, senior researcher at Columbia Climate School, told CBS News he doesn't believe there's any current evidence at this time that cloud seeding pushed the downpour over the edge. 

"This event was forecast fairly well days in advance and I think it's unlikely that a cloud seeding operation would move forward given the well-forecast intense rainfall," he said.

The nation's  National Emergency Crisis and Management Authority issued weather warnings on Monday before the storm's arrival, urging people to comply with local instructions from authorities and asking them to stay at home and only leave in the case of an emergency. 

Meteorologist Ryan Maue, former chief scientist at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, gave the Associated Press a more definitive answer: "It's most certainly not cloud seeding." 

"If that occurred with cloud seeding , they'd have water all the time," he said. "...when it comes to controlling individual rain storms, we are not anywhere close to that. And if we were capable of doing that, I think we would be capable of solving many more difficult problems than creating a rain shower over Dubai ."

The deluge, he said, "speaks more to questions around what are the resilience measures that are integrated into the urban planning standard operating procedures." 

"Almost everywhere on Earth there is a risk of flash flooding," he said. "Yet, since it's not the most frequent type of extreme event, sometimes it's lower on the priority list when decisions need to be made around infrastructure or resilience, or just urban development more broadly."  

How significant was the flooding in Dubai?  

More than 5.59 inches of rain fell over Dubai within 24 hours. While a half-foot of rain may not seem like much numerically, that's more than what the city sees in an average year, and other parts of the UAE saw even higher levels. 

It was a "historic weather event," the state-run WAM news agency said, adding that it was beyond "anything documented since the start of data collection in 1949." 

Dubai is normally dry and with a downpour like this being so unprecedented, the city's infrastructure was not prepared. The drainage systems were overwhelmed and Dubai International Airport, one of the busiest in the world, had to temporarily halt operations. One plane passenger told Reuters many people were waiting more than 12 hours to be able to resume travel. Footage from the airport shows planes taxiing in eerie floodwaters. 

"Over a year's worth of rainfall was experienced in just a few hours," Kruczkiewicz told CBS News. "And why that's important to to understand is that when you see this amount of rainfall in semi-arid arid area, the soil isn't designed to filter the water as fast as in other areas. ... You don't need that much water falling or rainfall falling in a short period of time to cause major issues." 

Is cloud seeding effective? 

According to the Desert Research Institute, how effective cloud seeding is depends on the specific project in which it's being used. Citing several studies, the institute said it's helped increase overall snowpack in some areas by at least 10% per year. Another study found that a five-year project in New South Wales, Australia resulted in a 14% snowfall increase.  

The UAE's National Center of Meteorology launched the Research Program for Rain Enhancement Science to advance the technology, saying that for dryer regions across the world, cloud seeding "could offer a viable, cost-effective supplement to existing water supplies." Many regions even beyond the Middle East have been suffering from water scarcity issues, including Colombia , Mexico and Hawaii . 

• Science of Weather
• United Arab Emirates
• Climate Change
• Severe Weather

Li Cohen is a social media producer and trending content writer for CBS News.

More from CBS News

Climate change a health risk for 70% of world's workers, UN warns

What is biodiversity?

Could some species dying on Earth be saved in outer space?

Poll: Big majority of Americans favor taking steps to reduce climate change

Lam Research forecasts quarterly revenue above estimates on AI chip boom

• Medium Text

Sign up here.

Reporting by Akash Sriram in Bengaluru; Editing by Shilpi Majumdar

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

Technology Chevron

SK Hynix Q1 profit beats expectations on AI boom

South Korea's SK Hynix on Thursday posted its highest profit in nearly two years, as explosive sales of its advanced DRAM chips such as high bandwidth memory (HBM) used in generative AI chipsets drove a sharp performance improvement.

Semiconductor-testing equipment maker Teradyne forecast second-quarter profit and revenue above Wall Street estimates on Wednesday, helped by strong demand for its chip-testing equipment.

What is top of mind for dairy executives in 2024?

As the global population grows, agriculture systems everywhere must find ways to feed humankind sustainably. The US dairy industry is no exception. C-suite and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) leaders in the sector are shaping dairy’s path to a sustainable future, but at the same time, they are being asked to account for new innovations, regulations, and economic factors.

To gain insight into how dairy executives’ priorities have shifted over time, McKinsey and the International Dairy Foods Association conducted their sixth annual survey of dairy executives in fourth quarter 2023 (see sidebar, “About the research”). 1 To explore the results from last year’s survey, see Christina Adams, Ludovic Meilhac, Kate Toews, and Roberto Uchoa, “ Top priorities for dairy executives in 2023 ,” McKinsey, March 27, 2023. In interviews and responses to survey questions, respondents shared what excites them about dairy, emerging challenges in the sector, and more.

About the research

In fourth quarter 2023, the International Dairy Foods Association and McKinsey jointly surveyed nearly 80 executives and company leaders in the dairy industry, which included a poll and interviews with 38 industry leaders. Participants came from a variety of company types (processors, producers, retailers, packaging companies, and more), ranging in size from large to small. The companies represented are primarily headquartered in the United States but include organizations from other parts of North America, Europe, and Oceania.

To ensure that respondents were not being asked to give feedback on areas outside their expertise, the survey differentiated among respondents based on their role and whether their company has a sustainability or environmental, social, and governance (ESG) strategy. Only those in C-level and vice president roles from relevant fields (strategy and operations) were asked questions about the company’s business strategy and operations, a new area of inquiry in the 2023 survey, and only those with an ESG or sustainability strategy were asked about sustainability.

To quantify interview data, keywords mentioned in question responses were coded, grouped by subject, and compiled to form totals.

A number of new findings emerged from this survey. The previous survey showed that concerns were divided between growth, resilience, and sustainability, but sustainability has moved to the center of the conversation. We have seen progress on sustainability commitments and actions, but challenges with addressing farm-level emissions remain. Other findings indicate that although there is much work to be done, dairy executives are optimistic about the future of the industry.

What excites leaders in dairy?

Executives expressed excitement about many aspects of the dairy industry, from international opportunities to novel technologies. As in the 2022 survey, a few topics stood out during our interviews: growth, product nutrition, and innovation (Exhibit 1).

Dairy executives were most excited about growth, including growth in the industry, companies, and consumer demand. More than half of the executives we interviewed talked about the potential for growth, and more than 40 percent cited growth as their top source of excitement. This share of executives is similar to that of the 2022 survey, reflecting the sector’s overall momentum: the retail value of the overall dairy market in the United States grew by 9 percent from 2021 to 2022 and by 7 percent from 2022 to 2023. 2 Euromonitor US Retail Market Size Database, December 2023. According to our interviews, much of this growth was driven by pricing, though executives expect future growth to be propelled more by volume. Growth forecasts vary by product, but dairy overall is expected to grow 4 percent annually from 2024 through 2027, with most growth coming from cheese and yogurt. 3 Euromonitor US Retail Market Size Database, December 2023.

Dairy is just scratching the surface of unlocking value for consumers around the world. Dairy executive

Product nutrition and innovation

Almost 30 percent of dairy executives we interviewed were most excited about the nutrition or “goodness” of their products, from the high nutrient density of yogurt to the potential for dairy protein ingredients. In addition, one-third of the executives we interviewed were excited about product innovations that allow them to better harness the nutrition of dairy. Excitement about innovation is not new—as far back as the 2018 Executive Sentiment Survey, product innovation was the second-most-cited response to the question, “What do you believe is your company’s top source of competitive advantage?” (17 percent).

What keeps dairy leaders up at night?

Although there is much to be excited about in dairy, industry leaders do not wear rose-tinted glasses when looking toward the future. When we asked dairy leaders about their biggest concerns (what keeps them up at night), the most frequent answers were sustainability and regulation (Exhibit 2).

Sustainability

When asked what keeps them up at night, executives were most likely to cite sustainability (19 percent of interviewees). About three-quarters of survey respondents said their sustainability efforts are motivated by their customers (retailers and other dairy vendors), and just under half said the same of consumers. This finding is relatively consistent with 2022 results. However, interviewed executives said that consumers may not be willing to pay more for sustainable products, raising understandable concerns about the costs associated with decarbonization and other sustainability initiatives. Still, some signals suggest that ESG could be growing in importance for consumers. In a recent joint analysis with Nielsen IQ, McKinsey found that yogurt and cheese products with ESG-related claims outperformed products without those claims. 4 “ Consumers care about sustainability—and back it up with their wallets ,” McKinsey, February 6, 2023.

Consumers are extremely interested in sustainability, but they are not necessarily willing to pay more. I’m not sure if this will ever change. People will tell you they are willing to pay for it, but they won’t. Dairy executive

Great progress has already been made in reducing the carbon intensity of dairy. In the United States, emissions per kilogram (kg) of milk dropped by 27 percent from 1995 to 2015, from 0.75 kg CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 e) per kg of milk to 0.55 kg CO 2 e per kg of milk. 5 FAO. Emissions intensities. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. Extracted from: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/EI. Date of Access: April 1, 2024. However, US dairy production has outpaced this rate of change (a 34 percent increase over the same period to 208 billion pounds), resulting in increased emissions overall. 6 National Agricultural Statistics Service survey on national milk production, from “Quick stats,” US Department of Agriculture, accessed April 10, 2024. There also remains great uncertainty about how to address Scope 3 emissions—that is, upstream emissions outside a company’s direct operational control, such as enteric emissions from cows and emissions from manure. 7 For more on Scope 3 emissions, see “ The Scope 3 challenge: Solutions across the materials value chain ,” McKinsey, May 5, 2023. Scope 3 emissions are inherently difficult to measure, particularly at the farm level.

One challenge when it comes to sustainability is how we control the cost, from carbon credits to biodigesters. The more go-betweens you have between the farmer and the processor, the more expensive it gets. Dairy executive

Many dairy leaders also cited regulation as a topic on their minds (13 percent). This makes sense, given that in the United States, national legislation affecting the dairy industry, including the Federal Milk Marketing Orders and the Farm Bill, have recently and will be revisited and renewed. Of particular interest is the Farm Bill, which covers a large suite of conservation programs and associated funding, including the $18 billion expansion of funds granted in the Inflation Reduction Act for agricultural practices that can mitigate and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). In addition, on March 6, 2024, the US Securities and Exchange Commission adopted rules to enhance and standardize climate related disclosures, adding pressure on sustainability transparency. 8 “SEC adopts rules to enhance and standardize climate-related disclosures for investors,” SEC, March 6, 2024.

The past few years have also seen new environmental regulations concerning dairy. For example, California Senate Bill 1383, enacted in 2020, requires dairies to reduce methane emissions by 40 percent from 2013 levels by 2030. Dairy leaders are also looking at environmental regulation abroad and considering what the impact could be if the United States follows suit. Examples include the European Green Deal and New Zealand’s upcoming carbon tax on farm emissions.

What priorities have changed in importance?

Since the 2022 survey, dairy executives’ leading priorities have shifted toward ESG topics. Talent saw the biggest increase in priority, rising from fourth to second place (Exhibit 3). Sustainability experienced the second-highest increase (sixth to fifth place), trading places with supply chain, one of 2022’s critical topics.

In the 2023 interviews, 45 percent of executives noted that talent is less of a concern now than it was in the past few years. This may be because leaders were particularly concerned about talent in 2022, with about 70 percent of executives sharing their concerns about labor in 2022 interviews. However, survey results indicate that the past year’s concern is this year’s strategic priority: in 2023, 60 percent of executives cited talent as a strategic priority, moving it two places up the rankings.

We also noted a shift in how executives view the labor challenge. One executive said, “It is more a generational change. I doubt the new people we hire will retire here.” In fact, a 2022 McKinsey survey of 1,763 Gen Z Americans (aged 18 to 24) found that 77 percent of them are searching for a new job. 9 “ How does Gen Z see its place in the working world? With trepidation ,” McKinsey, October 19, 2022. At the same time, dairy companies are trying to make the workplace more appealing to potential employees. Our interviews with dairy leaders revealed three common approaches to managing labor issues: compensation, culture, and process. Dairy companies are considering increasing wages and benefit packages, focusing on company culture, and investing in operational technology to help attract and retain talent.

We are focusing on making this a great place to work, connecting to purpose and values. Dairy executive

Environmental sustainability

In addition to keeping executives up at night, sustainability is a strategic priority. For example, 60 percent of processors said that reducing GHG emissions was a top three issue in their sustainability strategy, particularly since addressing Scope 3 and farm-level emissions is so challenging. According to our survey, 71 percent of companies are measuring farm emissions, but only 27 percent are changing procurement based on emissions, and an even smaller portion—7 percent—are mandating that farms inset their emissions reductions (rather than sell outside the value chain).

Sustainability is very high on our agenda. A mentality shift is needed to decarbonize the industry, and for a while, there has been talk but no action. Now we are seeing things intensify. Dairy executive

Companies are also considering their impact on natural capital. Forty-five percent of companies cited water usage as a top three issue in their sustainability strategy. And when asked about how they are addressing nature and natural capital, 44 percent said they were sourcing feed grown with regenerative-agriculture practices, and 20 percent said they were incorporating recommendations from the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures.

To build and enact sustainability strategies, almost 90 percent of the surveyed dairy companies currently have a sustainability or ESG lead on staff. Of these leads, 77 percent are dedicated full-time employees, up from about 60 percent in 2022. These sustainability leaders will need their companies to support them in taking concrete actions if they want to reach net-zero emissions.

What’s next?

Moving forward, sustainability looms large. Indeed, decarbonization of the dairy industry is already intensifying. At the UN Climate Change Conference (COP28) in 2023, several dairy companies (representing about 5 percent of global milk intake) announced the formation of the newly established Dairy Methane Action Alliance. This effort builds on prior industry sustainability efforts, such as the US Dairy Net Zero Initiative, launched in 2020. 10 “U.S. Dairy Net Zero Initiative,” Dairy Management, accessed April 3, 2024. Members of the Dairy Methane Action Alliance plan to address methane from across their dairy supply chains, including Scope 3 emissions. 11 Simon Harvey, “COP28 - Nestlé, Danone among food signatories to Dairy Methane Alliance,” Just Food, December 5, 2023.

Alongside sustainability, companies are taking steps to address labor needs and a challenging inflationary environment, which will likely remain necessary for the foreseeable future. As we look to 2024 and beyond, executives should consider the following areas:

• A path to net zero, including measuring and addressing Scope 3 emissions, is complex. Meeting the dairy industry’s goal of net zero by 2050 will require industry-wide alignment and meaningful actions, such as working with farms to reduce emissions via initiatives like manure management or novel feed additives. Companies can help push the industry forward by building out transparency and measurement capabilities, such as via integrated enterprise resource planning systems (ERPs).
• The forces pushing sustainability in the industry include consumer preferences, shareholder and lender pressure, and regulatory action. Companies should carefully track shifts across these dimensions and stay ahead of trends and requirements.
• The labor market is shifting. Taking steps to appeal to the current generation of workers will be critical. This may include offering flexible work schedules and staying up to date on best-in-class benefit offerings.

With exciting prospects on the horizon, the dairy industry has an opportunity to seize the moment and develop a more sustainable approach to dairy production. Global pushes such as the newly announced Dairy Methane Action Alliance, requirements from shareholders and retailers, and consumer preferences mean that the time is now for the dairy industry to develop a unified plan to tackle some of its biggest sustainability obstacles. If leaders can lean into innovations and make progress on emissions, they can set themselves up well in the years to come.

Rudolf Henkell-von Ribbentrop is an associate partner in McKinsey’s Washington, DC, office; Ludovic Meilhac is a partner in the Stamford office; and Emmy Moore is a consultant in the Bay Area office.

The authors wish to thank Christina Adams, Melanie Lieberman, and Elizabeth Yablon for their contributions to this article.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

How feed supplements can reduce methane emissions in agriculture

Top priorities for dairy executives in 2023

Similar yet different: Meet today’s consumer of dairy and alternatives