how to critically read research papers

Reference management. Clean and simple.

How to read a scientific paper: a step-by-step guide

Scientific paper format

How to read a scientific paper in 3 steps, step 1: identify your motivations for reading a scientific paper, step 2: use selective reading to gain a high-level understanding of the scientific paper, step 3: read straight through to achieve a deep understanding of a scientific paper, frequently asked questions about reading a scientific paper efficiently, related articles.

A scientific paper is a complex document. Scientific papers are divided into multiple sections and frequently contain jargon and long sentences that make reading difficult. The process of reading a scientific paper to obtain information can often feel overwhelming for an early career researcher.

But the good news is that you can acquire the skill of efficiently reading a scientific paper, and you can learn how to painlessly obtain the information you need.

In this guide, we show you how to read a scientific paper step-by-step. You will learn:

• The scientific paper format
• How to identify your reasons for reading a scientific paper
• How to skim a paper
• How to achieve a deep understanding of a paper.

Using these steps for reading a scientific paper will help you:

• Obtain information efficiently
• Retain knowledge more effectively
• Allocate sufficient time to your reading task.

The steps below are the result of research into how scientists read scientific papers and our own experiences as scientists.

Firstly, how is a scientific paper structured?

The main sections are Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. In the table below, we describe the purpose of each component of a scientific paper.

Because the structured format of a scientific paper makes it easy to find the information you need, a common technique for reading a scientific paper is to cherry-pick sections and jump around the paper.

In a YouTube video, Dr. Amina Yonis shows this nonlinear practice for reading a scientific paper. She justifies her technique by stating that “By reading research papers like this, you are enabling yourself to have a disciplined approach, and it prevents yourself from drowning in the details before you even get a bird’s-eye view”.

Selective reading is a skill that can help you read faster and engage with the material presented. In his article on active vs. passive reading of scientific papers, cell biologist Tung-Tien Sun defines active reading as "reading with questions in mind" , searching for the answers, and focusing on the parts of the paper that answer your questions.

Therefore, reading a scientific paper from start to finish isn't always necessary to understand it. How you read the paper depends on what you need to learn. For example, oceanographer Ken Hughes suggests that you may read a scientific paper to gain awareness of a theory or field, or you may read to actively solve a problem in your research.

To successfully read a scientific paper, we advise using three strategies:

• Identify your motivations for reading a scientific paper
• Use selective reading to gain a high-level understanding of the scientific paper
• Read straight through to achieve a deep understanding of a scientific paper .

All 3 steps require you to think critically and have questions in mind.

Before you sit down to read a scientific paper, ask yourself these three questions:

• Why do I need to read this paper?
• What information am I looking for?
• Where in the paper am I most likely to find the information I need?

Is it background reading or a literature review for a research project you are currently working on? Are you getting into a new field of research? Do you wish to compare your results with the ones presented in the paper? Are you following an author’s work, and need to keep up-to-date on their current research? Are you keeping tabs on emerging methods in your field?

All of these intentions require a different reading approach.

For example, if you're delving into a new field of research, you'll want to read the introduction to gather background information and seminal references. The discussion section will also be important to understand the broader context of the findings.

If you aim to extend the work presented in a paper, and this study will be the starting point for your work, it's crucial to read the paper deeply.

If your focus is on the study design and techniques used by the authors, you'll spend most of your time reading and understanding the methods section.

Sometimes you'll need to read a paper to discuss it in your own research. This may be to compare or contrast your work with the paper's content, or to stimulate a discussion on future applications of your work.

If you are following an author’s work, a quick skim might suffice to understand how the paper fits into their overall research program.

Tip: Knowing why you want to read the paper facilitates how you will read the paper. Depending on your needs, your approach may take the form of a surface-level reading or a deep and thorough reading.

Knowing your motivations will guide your navigation through the paper because you have already identified which sections are most likely to contain the information you need. Approaching reading a paper in this way saves you time and makes the task less daunting.

➡️ Learn more about how to write a literature review

Begin by gaining an overview of the paper by following these simple steps:

• Read the title. What type of paper is it? Is it a journal article, a review, a methods paper, or a commentary?
• Read the abstract . The abstract is a summary of the study. What is the study about? What question was addressed? What methods were used? What did the authors find, and what are the key findings? What do the authors think are the implications of the work? Reading the abstract immediately tells you whether you should invest the time to read the paper fully.
• Look at the headings and subheadings, which describe the sections and subsections of the paper. The headings and subheadings outline the story of the paper.
• Skim the introduction. An introduction has a clear structure. The first paragraph is background information on the topic. If you are new to the field, you will read this closely, whereas an expert in that field will skim this section. The second component defines the gap in knowledge that the paper aims to address. What is unknown, and what research is needed? What problem needs to be solved? Here, you should find the questions that will be addressed by the study, and the goal of the research. The final paragraph summarizes how the authors address their research question, for example, what hypothesis will be tested, and what predictions the authors make. As you read, make a note of key references. By the end of the introduction, you should understand the goal of the research.
• Go to the results section, and study the figures and tables. These are the data—the meat of the study. Try to comprehend the data before reading the captions. After studying the data, read the captions. Do not expect to understand everything immediately. Remember, this is the result of many years of work. Make a note of what you do not understand. In your second reading, you will read more deeply.
• Skim the discussion. There are three components. The first part of the discussion summarizes what the authors have found, and what they think the implications of the work are. The second part discusses some (usually not all!) limitations of the study, and the final part is a concluding statement.
• Glance at the methods. Get a brief overview of the techniques used in the study. Depending on your reading goals, you may spend a lot of time on this section in subsequent readings, or a cursory reading may be sufficient.
• Summarize what the paper is about—its key take-home message—in a sentence or two. Ask yourself if you have got the information you need.
• List any terminology you may need to look up before reading the paper again.
• Scan the reference list. Make a note of papers you may need to read for background information before delving further into the paper.

Congratulations, you have completed the first reading! You now have gained a high-level perspective of the study, which will be enough for many research purposes.

Now that you have an overview of the work and you have identified what information you want to obtain, you are ready to understand the paper on a deeper level. Deep understanding is achieved in the second and subsequent readings with note-taking and active reflection. Here is a step-by-step guide.

• Active engagement with the material
• Critical thinking
• Creative thinking
• Synthesis of information
• Consolidation of information into memory.

Highlighting sentences helps you quickly scan the paper and be reminded of the key points, which is helpful when you return to the paper later.

Notes may include ideas, connections to other work, questions, comments, and references to follow up on.

There are many ways for taking notes on a paper. You can:

• Print out the paper, and write your notes in the margins.
• Annotate the paper PDF from your desktop computer, or mobile device .
• Use personal knowledge management software, like Notion , Obsidian, or Evernote, for note-taking. Notes are easy to find in a structured database and can be linked to each other.
• Use reference management tools to take notes. Having your notes stored with the scientific papers you’ve read has the benefit of keeping all your ideas in one place. Some reference managers, like Paperpile, allow you to add notes to your papers, and highlight key sentences on PDFs .

Note-taking facilitates critical thinking and helps you evaluate the evidence that the authors present. Ask yourself questions like:

• What new contribution has the study made to the literature?
• How have the authors interpreted the results? (Remember, the authors have thought about their results more deeply than anybody else.)
• What do I think the results mean?
• Are the findings well-supported?
• What factors might have affected the results, and have the authors addressed them?
• Are there alternative explanations for the results?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the study?
• What are the broader implications of the study?
• What should be done next?

Note-taking also encourages creative thinking . Ask yourself questions like:

• What new ideas have arisen from reading the paper?
• How does it connect with your work?
• What connections to other papers can you make?
• Write a summary of the paper in your own words. This is your attempt to integrate the new knowledge you have gained with what you already know from other sources and to consolidate that information into memory. You may find that you have to go back and re-read some sections to confirm some of the details.
• Discuss the paper with others. You may find that even at this stage, there are still aspects of the paper that you are striving to understand. It is now a good time to reach out to others—peers in your program, your advisor, or even on social media. In their 10 simple rules for reading a scientific paper , Maureen Carey and coauthors suggest that participating in journal clubs, where you meet with peers to discuss interesting or important scientific papers, is a great way to clarify your understanding.
• A scientific paper can be read over many days. According to research presented in the book " Make it Stick: The Science of Successful Learning " by writer Peter Brown and psychology professors Henry Roediger and Mark McDaniel, "spaced practice" is more effective for retaining information than focusing on a single skill or subject until it is mastered. This involves breaking up learning into separate periods of training or studying. Applying this research to reading a scientific paper suggests that spacing out your reading by breaking the work into separate reading sessions can help you better commit the information in a paper to memory.

A dense journal article may need many readings to be understood fully. It is useful to remember that many scientific papers result from years of hard work, and the expectation of achieving a thorough understanding in one sitting must be modified accordingly. But, the process of reading a scientific paper will get easier and faster with experience.

The best way to read a scientific paper depends on your needs. Before reading the paper, identify your motivations for reading a scientific paper, and pinpoint the information you need. This will help you decide between skimming the paper and reading the paper more thoroughly.

Don’t read the paper from beginning to end. Instead, be aware of the scientific paper format. Take note of the information you need before starting to read the paper. Then skim the paper, jumping to the appropriate sections in the paper, to get the information you require.

It varies. Skimming a scientific paper may take anywhere between 15 minutes to one hour. Reading a scientific paper to obtain a deep understanding may take anywhere between 1 and 6 hours. It is not uncommon to have to read a dense paper in chunks over numerous days.

First, read the introduction to understand the main thesis and findings of the paper. Pay attention to the last paragraph of the introduction, where you can find a high-level summary of the methods and results. Next, skim the paper by jumping to the results and discussion. Then carefully read the paper from start to finish, taking notes as you read. You will need more than one reading to fully understand a dense research paper.

To read a scientific paper critically, be an active reader. Take notes, highlight important sentences, and write down questions as you read. Study the data. Take care to evaluate the evidence presented in the paper.

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
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-.

StatPearls [Internet].

How to read a scientific manuscript.

Martin R. Huecker ; Jacob Shreffler .

Affiliations

Last Update: September 12, 2022 .

• Definition/Introduction

The Statistics and Healthcare Economics section of StatPearls seeks to provide a framework for learners to engage with evidence-based medicine (EBM) in order to maintain high standards of clinical practice.

The father of EBM, Dr. David Sackett, describes EBM as “conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients … integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research." [1]  “Good doctors use both individual clinical expertise and the best available external evidence, and neither alone is enough .” [1] (Italics provided)

• Issues of Concern

Evidence-based medicine involves “life-long, self-directed learning in which caring for our own patients creates the need for clinically important information about diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, and other clinical and health care issues, and in which we [1] :

• Convert this information needs into answerable questions
• Track down, with maximum efficiency, the best evidence with which to answer them (whether from the clinical examination, the diagnostic laboratory from research evidence, or other sources)
• Critically appraise that evidence for its validity (closeness to the truth) and usefulness (clinical applicability)
• Integrate this appraisal with our clinical expertise and apply it in practice
• Evaluate our performance."

The above establishes the paradigm that clinicians must maintain curiosity and continuous learning to ensure effective care for all patients regardless of competence and experience. Please refer to the StatPearls overview chapter on evidence-based medicine for more background.

• Clinical Significance

This article will cover the approach to reading, digesting, and applying content from scientific manuscripts to optimize patient care for all providers.

Original research manuscripts have the following sections (in chronologic order) [2] :

• Title and Abstract
• Introduction (Background and Objectives)
• Methods (Design, Setting, Participants, Variables, Statistics)
• Results (Participants, Descriptives, Outcomes, Subgroups)
• Tables and Figures     
• Discussion (Key findings, Limitations, Interpretations)
• Conflict of Interest (COI), Author affiliations, Acknowledgments, Funding

Though less likely to follow a standardized outline, review articles typically consist of the following sections [3] :

• Context/Objective
• Methods (Data Sources, Study Selection, Data Extraction)
• Results (Tables and Figures)

Literature Search

The first step in answering a question about clinical management (and the first step in embarking upon one’s own research) is searching for the existing literature on a topic. The fundamental skill in evaluating the results of a literature search is understanding and interpreting a scientific paper. Other StatPearls chapters cover different types of studies (retrospective, prospective, cohort, case-control, blinded, epidemiologic, etc.). This chapter focuses on the practical aspects of reading a paper.

One main distinction involves whether a study describes a quality improvement project (measuring adherence to the current standard of care) or presenting new data (potential changes to the standard of care). One, two, or a handful of papers cannot establish a new standard of care; thus, one must always exercise caution in rushing to adopt practices gleaned from limited evidence that may prove false in subsequent research. [4]

The literature search is a crucial feature of practicing EBM. Tactics are described elsewhere, but one should explore different tools such as OVID, Pubmed, and Google Scholar. [5] Unlike a general Google web search, Pubmed Clinical Queries and Google Scholar perform very well, though different users will have different preferences. [6]  You can filter the search by year, subject type (human or animal), article type (trials, review), etc. Pay close attention to the journal in which papers appear. For instance, when using Google Web search, you may find non-peer-reviewed papers and non-indexed manuscripts, which likely will have less reliability. If you find and spend time reading ten low-quality papers from obscure predatory journals, you will not draw accurate conclusions about your clinical question. Again, garbage in, garbage out. Sadly, scientific literature becomes less and less readable over time, with authors lacking the skill or motivation to write concisely and straightforwardly. [7]

Efficient Manuscript Reading

• Effective literature search methods
• Introduction if needed
• Tables and Figures
• Results and Discussion
• Abstract again
• Methods and COI
• Write down notes, consider implications for practice, discuss with a colleague.

The first and most lasting impression readers have of a scientific publication is the Title. Because much of the audience only read the Title, it should convey the main take-home point. [8]  The other component of the paper that most readers will attend to is the Abstract. One should read the title and Abstract first to establish a blueprint for what the author(s) wants to convey related to their research.

The next step in reading a manuscript will depend upon one’s prior knowledge of the topic, goals of reading the paper, level of concentration/time to devote to reading, and overall interest. If one has a limited background knowledge on the topic, one should begin with the Introduction. The Introduction should establish what is already published/known on the topic, what gaps exist in the literature, and what this study intends to accomplish / hypotheses the researchers intend to test. Typically, the last paragraph of the introduction clearly states the aims of the study; thus, one can skip to this paragraph if desired.

The most efficient next step in reading the manuscript is reviewing the Tables and Figures. Tables should present data on the study subjects, their characteristics, and possibly how the subject sample or population was divided for the study. If done well, Figures will visually capture the larger themes of the paper, the most important findings presented in a visuospatial form (compared to word form in the conclusions).

After reviewing the Tables and Figures, move next to the Results section. Here, the author summarizes the objective results, ideally with no opinion as to the significance. You should begin to interpret the results and how they relate to the Tables and Figures. You can use your own background knowledge to compare the results to what has already been established in the literature. Even with limited background in statistics, attempt to critique the analysis, ensuring it makes sense. Consult and scrutinize the methods section with any questions on techniques, regardless of your background in statistics. Refer to other publications on tips to detect misleading or inaccurate statistical claims. [9]

Next, read the Discussion section. The first paragraph of the Discussion will usually highlight the most important findings of the study. The Discussion should interpret the results in light of stated hypotheses, citing within reason all prior (both remote and recent) studies directly relevant to these results. Look for gaps in citations – did the authors leave out any seminal papers? Do they make connections that seem reasonable, logical? Follow the given References; use this paper to explore prior similar papers. You will often find Reference(s) that is more precisely addressing the clinical question you seek to answer for your practice.

The Discussion (and Conclusion) sections can be fraught with bias, as the authors move from statement of objective data to interpretation. As the reader, our role is to beware of and detect biases or unsubstantiated conclusions that do not directly follow from the data presented. Do not simply accept conclusions without this critical evaluation. 

At this point, you may refer back to the Abstract to consider if the authors captured the most salient background, results, and conclusions. Did they take too much liberty with the conclusions? Did they downplay something of significance? To address questions about methodology, refer to the Methods section. Does the precise patient population allow for the generalization of the conclusions? Do the settings and participants look similar to your practice environment? Could you apply these findings to your patients? 

Finally, you should review the authors’ affiliations, contributions (if provided), and especially the conflicts of interest (COI). Authors with extensive COI may have difficulty objectively assessing their own data and making reasonable conclusions.

Once you have read the entire paper and feel comfortable with understanding, write down notes, think about how this research could impact your practice, and go explain the study to someone! This will test your comprehension and lead to better retention of the material, as with any new content in preparation for a licensing examination. [10]  Follow the other references you found in the paper and take notes from them. Put together a well-rounded answer to your original question. Exercise caution in adopting new practices to reduce iatrogenic harm from overzealous attempts at progressive practice. [11]  Maintain a balance between knowledge of new findings and the need for the reversal of disproven practices. [12]

• Nursing, Allied Health, and Interprofessional Team Interventions

The plural of anecdote is data, but don’t forget, garbage in, garbage out. Aggregating patient data can yield important insight superior to the recollection of individual patient encounters. However, poor methodology, bias, or a combination of both can lead to erroneous conclusions that eventually hurt patients. Continue to practice this skill of reading the literature, and review more papers related to this topic. [13]

If you have answered your clinical question and weighed the risk of harm and benefits, you can begin to integrate this new knowledge into clinical practice. If there is a gap in the literature related to your question, consider conducting your own research. Your ability to critically read a manuscript will equip you with the skills to write your own (covered in a separate StatPearls chapter).

• Review Questions
• Access free multiple choice questions on this topic.
• Comment on this article.

Disclosure: Martin Huecker declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

Disclosure: Jacob Shreffler declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

This book is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ), which permits others to distribute the work, provided that the article is not altered or used commercially. You are not required to obtain permission to distribute this article, provided that you credit the author and journal.

• Cite this Page Huecker MR, Shreffler J. How To Read A Scientific Manuscript. [Updated 2022 Sep 12]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-.

In this Page

Bulk download.

• Bulk download StatPearls data from FTP

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Similar articles in PubMed

• How To Write And Publish A Scientific Manuscript. [StatPearls. 2024] How To Write And Publish A Scientific Manuscript. Huecker MR, Shreffler J. StatPearls. 2024 Jan
• The effect of capacity building evidence-based medicine training on its implementation among healthcare professionals in Southwest Ethiopia: a controlled quasi-experimental outcome evaluation. [BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2023] The effect of capacity building evidence-based medicine training on its implementation among healthcare professionals in Southwest Ethiopia: a controlled quasi-experimental outcome evaluation. Ngusie HS, Ahmed MH, Mengiste SA, Kebede MM, Shemsu S, Kanfie SG, Kassie SY, Kalayou MH, Gullslett MK. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2023 Aug 31; 23(1):172. Epub 2023 Aug 31.
• Focused Evidence-Based Medicine Curriculum for Trainees in Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine. [MedEdPORTAL. 2017] Focused Evidence-Based Medicine Curriculum for Trainees in Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine. Pammi M, Lingappan K, Carbajal MM, Suresh GK. MedEdPORTAL. 2017 Dec 26; 13:10664. Epub 2017 Dec 26.
• Review A real-world approach to Evidence-Based Medicine in general practice: a competency framework derived from a systematic review and Delphi process. [BMC Med Educ. 2017] Review A real-world approach to Evidence-Based Medicine in general practice: a competency framework derived from a systematic review and Delphi process. Galbraith K, Ward A, Heneghan C. BMC Med Educ. 2017 May 3; 17(1):78. Epub 2017 May 3.
• Review The evidence-based medicine model of clinical practice: scientific teaching or belief-based preaching? [J Eval Clin Pract. 2011] Review The evidence-based medicine model of clinical practice: scientific teaching or belief-based preaching? Charles C, Gafni A, Freeman E. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011 Aug; 17(4):597-605. Epub 2010 Nov 18.

Recent Activity

• How To Read A Scientific Manuscript - StatPearls How To Read A Scientific Manuscript - StatPearls

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Critical Reading 101:

Get ready to read research papers effectively

If you’re going to be reviewing and analysing lots of research papers, you need a plan. To know what to read and when to stop, to collect the evidence and ensure you understand.

Critical reading is the skill used by researchers to better comprehend and evaluate literature. It requires structure and the right tools to help you to stay focussed on interpreting, questioning and critiquing what you read.

How to critically read a research paper

Here’s the fundamentals and what you need to master critical reading:

Plan your investigation, before you begin reading

Start by defining your investigation questions and create a template to record evidence, what you understand and the pros and cons of the sections that are important.

3 things to include:

• What do you need to know about the paper to understand the goals and context of their research?
• What evidence are you looking for from the research paper, based on what you want to do with the information or the purpose of your review?
• What questions will you ask to assess the claims and document the strengths and weaknesses?

It is also a good idea to organise your questions and apply cut off points, so you know when to stop reading. For example if you are not seeing anything new or if you identify a fallacy early on you need to decide whether it is worth spending any more time on the paper. However far you get, record what you find as everything you read provides insight.

What you will need: A template to record evidence and your critique consistently

Decide where to begin – problem, goal, methodology

If you know what you want to examine, you need to figure out where to look, so you don’t have to read every word to extract what’s important. Use the structure of the paper and skim read sections or use AI to help you to find information of interest.

What you will need: A strategy to find and collate specific information to review

Systematically find, read and question the information

So now you know what you are looking for and where to look, it’s time to start reading. It’s likely you will read important sections of a paper more than once. Firstly to ensure you understand and comprehend what the information is telling you, before you go on to analyse and question what is being said. Each time, actively think about what you want to know and the questions that you are trying to answer.

For example if you are reading to comprehend, question whether you understand the concepts, theory or terminology that is being used. Lookup things you don’t know, to avoid misinterpreting what you read.

What you will need: Highlight and note taking tools to help recall important information

Interpret and critique what you found

Test your comprehension and use the template you created to write up your findings straight after reading or analysing sections of the paper. Begin with your understanding of the research, followed by your analysis of the findings. Remember, you are evaluating this from the perspective of what the author wants to achieve before evaluating the pros and cons in relation to what you already know.

Reading, questioning and writing up your findings can be intense, but it will help you to stay focussed, help you to remember the insights and enable you to compare findings as you read more and more papers. What you will need: Your critique template and the ability to link information as you find connections

This is what you will need to help you to critically read:

• A template to record evidence and your critique consistently
• A way to find and collate specific information to review
• Highlight and note taking tools to help recall important information
• The ability to link information as you find connections

RAx provides the tools to help researchers to critically read

Author: Enago Read

Launching RAx Review Assistant for Peer Reviewers

RAx Citation Count: Check the impact of your research paper

Enago Read (RAx) is joining Enago (Crimson Interactive)

AI Text Summarizer: Best AI Summarizer for Free

Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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

Subscribe to stay updated with us!

Join thousands of subscribers to get regular updates on industry trends and our blog posts.

How to read a paper, critical review

Reading a scientific article is a complex task. The worst way to approach this task is to treat it like the reading of a textbook—reading from title to literature cited, digesting every word along the way without any reflection or criticism.

A critical review (sometimes called a critique, critical commentary, critical appraisal, critical analysis) is a detailed commentary on and critical evaluation of a text. You might carry out a critical review as a stand-alone exercise, or as part of your research and preparation for writing a literature review. The following guidelines are designed to help you critically evaluate a research article.

How to Read a Scientific Article

You should begin by skimming the article to identify its structure and features. As you read, look for the author’s main points.

• Generate questions before, during, and after reading.
• Draw inferences based on your own experiences and knowledge.
• To really improve understanding and recall, take notes as you read.

What is meant by critical and evaluation?

• To be critical does not mean to criticise in an exclusively negative manner.   To be critical of a text means you question the information and opinions in the text, in an attempt to evaluate or judge its worth overall.
• An evaluation is an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a text.   This should relate to specific criteria, in the case of a research article.   You have to understand the purpose of each section, and be aware of the type of information and evidence that are needed to make it convincing, before you can judge its overall value to the research article as a whole.

Useful Downloads

• How to read a scientific paper
• How to conduct a critical review

Princeton Correspondents on Undergraduate Research

In Between the Lines: A Guide to Reading Critically

I often find that Princeton professors assume that we all know how to “read critically.” It’s a phrase often included in essay prompts, and a skill necessary to academic writing. Maybe we’re familiar with its definition: close examination of a text’s logic, arguments, style, and other content in order to better understand the author’s intent. Reading non-critically would be identifying a metaphor in a passage, whereas the critical reader would question why the author used that specific metaphor in the first place. Now that the terminology is clarified, what does critical reading look like in practice? I’ve put together a short guide on how I approach my readings to help demystify the process.

• Put on your scholar hat. Critical reading starts before the first page. You should assume that the reading in front of you was the product of several choices made by the author, and that each of these choices is subject to analysis. This is a critical mindset, but importantly, not a negative one. Not taking a reading at face value doesn’t mean approaching the reading hoping to find everything that’s  wrong, but rather what could be improved .
• Revisit Writing Sem : Motive and thesis are incredibly helpful guides to understanding tough academic texts. Examining why the author is writing this text (motive), provides a context for the work that follows. The thesis should be in the back of your mind at all times to understand how the evidence presented proves it, but simultaneously thinking about the motive  allows you to think about what opponents to the author might say, and then question how the evidence would stand up to these potential rebuttals.
• Get physical . Take notes! Critical reading involves making observations and insights—track them! My process involves underlining, especially as I see recurring terms, images, or themes. As I read, I also like to turn back and forth constantly between pages to link up arguments. I was reading a longer legal text for a class and found that flipping back and forth helped me clarify the ideas presented in the beginning of the text so I could track their development in later pages.
• Play Professor. While I’m reading, I like to imagine potential discussion or essay topics I would come up with if I were a professor. These usually involves examining the themes of the text, placing this text in comparison or contrast with another one we have read in the class, and paying close attention to how the evidence attempts to prove the thesis.
• Form an (informed) opinion. After much work, underlining, and debating, it’s safe to make your own judgments about the author’s work. In forming this opinion, I like to mentally prepare to have this opinion debated, which helps me complicate my own conclusions—a great start to a potential essay!

Critical reading is an important prerequisite for the academic writing that Princeton professors expect. The best papers don’t start with the first word you type, but rather how you approach the texts composing your essay subject. Hopefully, this guide to reading critically will help you write critically as well!

–Elise Freeman, Social Sciences Correspondent

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr

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

• Peterborough

Reading Scientific Papers

Understanding and analyzing empirical articles, understanding scientific papers, reading as a process, step 1: preview the scientific paper, introduction, step 3: reflect and take notes.

The first step to reading more critically and efficiently is to understand the structure of the source you’re reading. Thankfully, scientific papers, a.k.a. articles, typically follow a standard format that you may already be familiar with from writing lab reports—both are based on the scientific method and typically contain the following four sections: The introduction is where the authors present their research question and explain their hypotheses and predictions. The methods section details how they conducted the study and analyzed the data, and the results section summarizes the key findings. Finally, scientific papers end with a discussion where the authors interpret the results, explain whether they support the hypothesis, and relate the study to the broader field of research. This common structure helps scientists better communicate their research with one another and the larger public—armed with an understanding of this structure, you’ll now be able to better understand and analyze scientific research.

You likely think of reading as a one-step event: you pick up a book or article and read it. Experts on reading, however, suggest that a multi-step process can make you a more efficient and critical reader.

Step 1: Preview the source to get a sense of what it will offer

Step 2: Read for understanding and analysis

Step 3: Reflect and takes notes on the reading

Keep in mind that how you accomplish each of these steps will differ depending on what kind of source you are reading. The remainder of this guide details how to approach each step when reading scientific papers.

Before you begin to read a scientific paper, consider how it relates to the course, your experiment, or your research project. Next, preview the source itself to determine its main goal, method, and findings. Your first step should be to read the abstract, which provides a brief summary of the paper . As you read, ask

• WHAT did the authors want to find out?
• WHY did they want to know this?
• HOW did they answer the question?
• WHAT did they find out?
• SO WHAT? Why is this research important?

Keep in mind that reading the abstract alone will not provide you with an understanding of the source. You must read the article in full, section by section: the next portion of this guide will help you focus your reading to both understand what the author is trying to say and to analyze and evaluate the source.

Step 2: Read for Understanding and Analysis

Each section of a scientific paper is carefully organized to present information in an expected format—as you become familiar with this standard structure, you’ll be able to easily locate the specific information you seek. Use the following descriptions and guiding questions to navigate each section as you read. You may also want to use our  Template for Taking Notes on Scientific Papers to organize your notes after you read each section.

A careful reading of the introduction is essential to understanding the reasons for and goals of a scientific study. In this section, authors provide an overview of the general topic, summarizing  background information from the existing literature. The authors explain how their research adds to current knowledge and convey its importance. The introduction is also where you’ll find the research question(s) and expected answer(s)—in scientific papers, these answers come in the form of hypotheses and predictions (to learn more about these, check out our guide to  Understanding Hypotheses and Predictions . Introductions often conclude with a brief summary of how the authors tested their hypotheses—a preview of the methods section.

Questions to Check Your Understanding

• What is the research question?
• Why should it be studied (what gap does this research fill)?
• How has it been studied before?
• What are the hypotheses and predictions?

Questions to Guide Your Analysis & Evaluation

• Is the question clear?
• How does the work compare to other studies in the field?
• Will this research contribute to our knowledge in an important way?
• Is the hypothesis justified?

In the methods section, the authors provide a detailed account of how they completed their study or experiment, the materials and/or participants they used, how they measured particular variables, and how they analyzed their data. As a reader, you will want to pay careful attention to this section and determine the strengths and weaknesses of the study’s design.

• How did the authors conduct the study or experiment?
• What materials and measures did they use?
• How did they sample the study area, subjects, or population?
• How did they analyze the collected data?
• Are the measures appropriate and clearly related to the research question? Do they adequately test the hypothesis?
• Does the sampling (e.g., study areas, subjects, participants) fairly represent the larger population of the study?
• Is the analysis appropriate for the data?
• Are there noticeable flaws in the method?

The results section summarizes the data in text, figures, and tables. As a careful reader, you should examine this section and consider not only what the authors found but also what findings they chose to present and how (for example, which results warranted display in a figure? which didn’t?).

• What are the major findings?
• How are the findings presented/displayed?
• Are enough data displayed to demonstrate the results?
• How do the findings relate to the hypotheses?
• Are the statistics appropriately presented?
• Did you note patterns that the author does not mention?

In this section, the authors analyze their findings and explain whether their results support their hypotheses and predictions. The authors explain why (or why not) by comparing not only their results but also their approach to those of other related studies, providing essential context and grounding their work in the existing literature. They also discuss the limitations, importance, and implications of their results and detail possible applications, extensions, or revisions of their study.

• Did the data support the hypothesis?
• If not, does the author explain why?
• How do the results compare to those of other studies?
• Are the findings significant?
• What are the limitations and applications?
• Did the authors interpret the results appropriately?
• Are you persuaded by the findings?
• How significant are the limitations of the study?
• Do the authors offer plausible applications for their research?
• Does the discussion reflect the major points from the introduction?

Taking notes while you read is time consuming and can even distract you from focusing on the ideas you are reading. Instead, separate the acts of reading and notetaking by reading a section or a few pages and then stopping to take notes. Make sure that your notes provide answers to the questions posed in each of the sections above. Again, you may want to use our Template for Taking Notes on Scientific Papers to organize your notes as you go.

After you have read and taken notes on the paper, be sure to reflect on it. How does it compare to other papers you’ve read on this topic? How does it relate to your experiment or research project? How might you use it in your course work, lab report, or paper?

Presenting papers

You’ll present one or more research papers during class. Critically reading research papers is a skill! Here are some tips, ideas, and techniques to help learn it.

Reading the paper

This may be the first time you’re reading research papers, or even the first time you’re reading research papers in the systems area. Welcome!

Research papers are parts of a big conversation among the researchers and practitioners that make up the “research community.” Many papers are best understood as reactions to, and participants in, that conversation, and the ongoing determination of the research community’s values. An important, and often implicit, part of paper reading is learning those values. It’s hard to pick this up in advance. Instead, you just have to dive in and read papers critically. An understanding of the community will come.

The style of most papers is dense (and often just plain bad). But you can get through the density by reading critically.

Don’t try to understand every word of the paper on first read. Instead, try to pick up the most important points by skimming. Then go back in more depth.

On the first read, focus on the paper’s overall goals and techniques. First, read to develop a paper summary in your own words. Here are four questions the summary should answer:

• What is the goal of the paper’s research area? The goal can be something nebulous, like “improving security,” or something concrete, like “improving network utilization.” But in systems the goal usually ties back to something like “spending less money” or “handling more data.” Usually this comes out in the first couple sentences of the abstract and in the introduction. Often those sentences are clichés.
• What is the technical problem the paper is trying to solve? The problem is usually an obstacle to achieving the goal, and it should be concrete; for instance, “Big Data computations in the cloud are delayed too much by stragglers (nodes that complete their portion of the computation much slower than other nodes).” This also is found in the abstract or introduction, but it may be best explained in the conclusion section.
• What is the technical contribution that the paper uses to solve this problem? Is this contribution a new idea, or a combination of old ideas? A good introduction will present the contribution(s), but sometimes you have to dig deeper—into a section called “Design” or “Architecture”—to get to the technical meat.
• What is the evidence that proves the contribution actually addresses the problem? This is presented in depth in the “Evaluation” section, and should be previewed in the abstract and introduction.

Once you have answers to those questions, you can already think critically.

• How far apart are the goal and the problem? For instance, many security papers describe a large, society-level goal, using terms like “Security breaches are estimated to cost US commerce $10B a year,” but then actually address just a tiny slice of that overall goal.
• How much of the problem does the contribution address? Could you have achieved similar improvements using a simpler technique?
• How interesting is the technical contribution on its own? Sometimes a paper is interesting because it identifies and solves a new technical problem, even though its solution techniques seem obvious in retrospect. Sometimes a paper is interesting because it uses new solution techniques, even though those techniques address a problem that’s more easily solved in another way. The best papers do both, but that’s rare. The worst papers do neither.
• How much evidence is provided that the contribution works? Are the experiments well chosen?
• Does the paper actually advance the state of the art? How does it compare to related work ? This is usually addressed in a separate “Related Work” section, which might come second (I prefer it there) or right before the conclusion.

With thoughts about these questions in mind, you can now go back and read the paper in more depth.

• The paper will usually present many techniques and ideas. Which of them seem most important, and which are filler?
• Are there any cool tricks and techniques that you could use in your own systems?
• What would you do differently?

The aim of reading papers critically is not to prove the paper wrong. Always remember that the authors spent much more time working on the paper than you did, and authors rarely lie. (But it does happen!) Instead, read actively , as if you’re in dialogue with the paper. Ask the paper tough questions, and then read to get the responses. If you don’t get a response, that is a flaw in the paper; then ask, is that flaw technical or in the exposition?

Presenting the paper

First share the summary with us. Assume we’ve read the paper, but that we need to be reminded of its contents. Use slides if you need to. (In computer systems most papers are presented at conferences, and the authors’ slides from the conference are often available on the Web. Use them!) Then talk about its coolest ideas and its biggest gaps. Share with us what you might have done differently. Your critical thinking will engage the class more and help us all to better understand the work.

Presenting someone else’s research paper isn’t too different from presenting your own. Check out How to give a good research talk by Simon Peyton-Jones et al.

There’s some advice online about how to present at a journal club. Much of this advice applies specifically to medical papers, but some is good general advice. Some tips from Johns Hopkins

How To Read A Paper

• Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research) Trisha Greenhalgh, Rod Taylor
• Papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews and meta-analyses) Trisha Greenhalgh
• Papers that tell you what things cost (economic analyses) Trisha Greenhalgh
• Papers that report diagnostic or screening tests Trisha Greenhalgh
• Papers that report drug trials Trisha Greenhalgh
• Statistics for the non-statistician. II: “Significant” relations and their pitfalls Trisha Greenhalgh
• Statistics for the non-statistician Trisha Greenhalgh
• Assessing the methodological quality of published papers Trisha Greenhalgh
• Getting your bearings (deciding what the paper is about) Trisha Greenhalgh
• The Medline database Trisha Greenhalgh

Follow us on

Content links.

• Collections
• Health in South Asia
• Women’s, children’s & adolescents’ health
• News and views
• BMJ Opinion
• Rapid responses
• Editorial staff
• BMJ in the USA
• BMJ in South Asia
• Submit your paper
• BMA members
• Subscribers
• Advertisers and sponsors

Explore BMJ

• Our company
• BMJ Careers
• BMJ Learning
• BMJ Masterclasses
• BMJ Journals
• BMJ Student
• Academic edition of The BMJ
• BMJ Best Practice
• The BMJ Awards
• Email alerts
• Activate subscription

Information

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

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: May 9, 2024 11:05 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

How to Read a Research Paper – A Guide to Setting Research Goals, Finding Papers to Read, and More

If you work in a scientific field, you should try to build a deep and unbiased understanding of that field. This not only educates you in the best possible way but also helps you envision the opportunities in your space.

A research paper is often the culmination of a wide range of deep and authentic practices surrounding a topic. When writing a research paper, the author thinks critically about the problem, performs rigorous research, evaluates their processes and sources, organizes their thoughts, and then writes. These genuinely-executed practices make for a good research paper.

If you’re struggling to build a habit of reading papers (like I am) on a regular basis, I’ve tried to break down the whole process. I've talked to researchers in the field, read a bunch of papers and blogs from distinguished researchers, and jotted down some techniques that you can follow.

Let’s start off by understanding what a research paper is and what it is NOT!

What is a Research Paper?

A research paper is a dense and detailed manuscript that compiles a thorough understanding of a problem or topic. It offers a proposed solution and further research along with the conditions under which it was deduced and carried out, the efficacy of the solution and the research performed, and potential loopholes in the study.

A research paper is written not only to provide an exceptional learning opportunity but also to pave the way for further advancements in the field. These papers help other scholars germinate the thought seed that can either lead to a new world of ideas or an innovative method of solving a longstanding problem.

What Research Papers are NOT

There is a common notion that a research paper is a well-informed summary of a problem or topic written by means of other sources.

But you shouldn't mistake it for a book or an opinionated account of an individual’s interpretation of a particular topic.

Why Should You Read Research Papers?

What I find fascinating about reading a good research paper is that you can draw on a profound study of a topic and engage with the community on a new perspective to understand what can be achieved in and around that topic.

I work at the intersection of instructional design and data science. Learning is part of my day-to-day responsibilities. If the source of my education is flawed or inefficient, I’d fail at my job in the long term. This applies to many other jobs in Science with a special focus on research.

There are three important reasons to read a research paper:

• Knowledge —  Understanding the problem from the eyes of someone who has probably spent years solving it and has taken care of all the edge cases that you might not think of at the beginning.
• Exploration —  Whether you have a pinpointed agenda or not, there is a very high chance that you will stumble upon an edge case or a shortcoming that is worth following up. With persistent efforts over a considerable amount of time, you can learn to use that knowledge to make a living.
• Research and review —  One of the main reasons for writing a research paper is to further the development in the field. Researchers read papers to review them for conferences or to do a literature survey of a new field. For example, Yann LeCun’ s paper on integrating domain constraints into backpropagation set the foundation of modern computer vision back in 1989. After decades of research and development work, we have come so far that we're now perfecting problems like object detection and optimizing autonomous vehicles.

Not only that, with the help of the internet, you can extrapolate all of these reasons or benefits onto multiple business models. It can be an innovative state-of-the-art product, an efficient service model, a content creator, or a dream job where you are solving problems that matter to you.

Goals for Reading a Research Paper — What Should You Read About?

The first thing to do is to figure out your motivation for reading the paper. There are two main scenarios that might lead you to read a paper:

• Scenario 1 —  You have a well-defined agenda/goal and you are deeply invested in a particular field. For example, you’re an NLP practitioner and you want to learn how GPT-4 has given us a breakthrough in NLP. This is always a nice scenario to be in as it offers clarity.
• Scenario 2 —  You want to keep abreast of the developments in a host of areas, say how a new deep learning architecture has helped us solve a 50-year old biological problem of understanding protein structures. This is often the case for beginners or for people who consume their daily dose of news from research papers (yes, they exist!).

If you’re an inquisitive beginner with no starting point in mind, start with scenario 2. Shortlist a few topics you want to read about until you find an area that you find intriguing. This will eventually lead you to scenario 1.

ML Reproducibility Challenge

In addition to these generic goals, if you need an end goal for your habit-building exercise of reading research papers, you should check out the ML reproducibility challenge.

You’ll find top-class papers from world-class conferences that are worth diving deep into and reproducing the results.

They conduct this challenge twice a year and they have one coming up in Spring 2021. You should study the past three versions of the challenge, and I’ll write a detailed post on what to expect, how to prepare, and so on.

Now you must be wondering – how can you find the right paper to read?

How to Find the Right Paper to Read

In order to get some ideas around this, I reached out to my friend, Anurag Ghosh who is a researcher at Microsoft. Anurag has been working at the crossover of computer vision, machine learning, and systems engineering.

Here are a few of his tips for getting started:

• Always pick an area you're interested in.
• Read a few good books or detailed blog posts on that topic and start diving deep by reading the papers referenced in those resources.
• Look for seminal papers around that topic. These are papers that report a major breakthrough in the field and offer a new method perspective with a huge potential for subsequent research in that field. Check out papers from the morning paper or C VF - test of time award/Helmholtz prize (if you're interested in computer vision).
• Check out books like Computer Vision: Algorithms and Applications by Richard Szeliski and look for the papers referenced there.
• Have and build a sense of community. Find people who share similar interests, and join groups/subreddits/discord channels where such activities are promoted.

In addition to these invaluable tips, there are a number of web applications that I’ve shortlisted that help me narrow my search for the right papers to read:

• r/MachineLearning  — there are many researchers, practitioners, and engineers who share their work along with the papers they've found useful in achieving those results.

• Arxiv Sanity Preserver  — built by Andrej Karpathy to accelerate research. It is a repository of 142,846 papers from computer science, machine learning, systems, AI, Stats, CV, and so on. It also offers a bunch of filters, powerful search functionality, and a discussion forum to make for a super useful research platform.

• Google Research  — the research teams at Google are working on problems that have an impact on our everyday lives. They share their publications for individuals and teams to learn from, contribute to, and expedite research. They also have a Google AI blog that you can check out.

How to Read a Research Paper

After you have stocked your to-read list, then comes the process of reading these papers. Remember that NOT every paper is useful to read and we need a mechanism that can help us quickly screen papers that are worth reading.

To tackle this challenge, you can use this Three-Pass Approach by S. Keshav . This approach proposes that you read the paper in three passes instead of starting from the beginning and diving in deep until the end.

The three pass approach

• The first pass —  is a quick scan to capture a high-level view of the paper. Read the title, abstract, and introduction carefully followed by the headings of the sections and subsections and lastly the conclusion. It should take you no more than 5–10 mins to figure out if you want to move to the second pass.
• The second pass —  is a more focused read without checking for the technical proofs. You take down all the crucial notes, underline the key points in the margins. Carefully study the figures, diagrams, and illustrations. Review the graphs, mark relevant unread references for further reading. This helps you understand the background of the paper.
• The third pass —  reaching this pass denotes that you’ve found a paper that you want to deeply understand or review. The key to the third pass is to reproduce the results of the paper. Check it for all the assumptions and jot down all the variations in your re-implementation and the original results. Make a note of all the ideas for future analysis. It should take 5–6 hours for beginners and 1–2 hours for experienced readers.

Tools and Software to Keep Track of Your Pipeline of Papers

If you’re sincere about reading research papers, your list of papers will soon grow into an overwhelming stack that is hard to keep track of. Fortunately, we have software that can help us set up a mechanism to manage our research.

Here are a bunch of them that you can use:

• Mendeley [not free]  — you can add papers directly to your library from your browser, import documents, generate references and citations, collaborate with fellow researchers, and access your library from anywhere. This is mostly used by experienced researchers.

• Zotero [free & open source] —  Along the same lines as Mendeley but free of cost. You can make use of all the features but with limited storage space.

• Notion —  this is great if you are just starting out and want to use something lightweight with the option to organize your papers, jot down notes, and manage everything in one workspace. It might not stand anywhere in comparison with the above tools but I personally feel comfortable using Notion and I have created this board to keep track of my progress for now that you can duplicate:

⚠️ Symptoms of Reading a Research Paper

Reading a research paper can turn out to be frustrating, challenging, and time-consuming especially when you’re a beginner. You might face the following common symptoms:

• You might start feeling dumb for not understanding a thing a paper says.
• Finding yourself pushing too hard to understand the math behind those proofs.
• Beating your head against the wall to wrap it around the number of acronyms used in the paper. Just kidding, you’ll have to look up those acronyms every now and then.
• Being stuck on one paragraph for more than an hour.

Here’s a complete list of emotions that you might undergo as explained by Adam Ruben in this article .

Key Takeaways

We should be all set to dive right in. Here’s a quick summary of what we have covered here:

• A research paper is an in-depth study that offers an detailed explanation of a topic or problem along with the research process, proofs, explained results, and ideas for future work.
• Read research papers to develop a deep understanding of a topic/problem. Then you can either review papers as part of being a researcher, explore the domain and the kind of problems to build a solution or startup around it, or you can simply read them to keep abreast of the developments in your domain of interest.
• If you’re a beginner, start with exploration to soon find your path to goal-oriented research.
• In order to find good papers to read, you can use websites like arxiv-sanity, google research, and subreddits like r/MachineLearning.
• Reading approach — Use the 3-pass method to find a paper.
• Keep track of your research, notes, developments by using tools like Zotero/Notion.
• This can get overwhelming in no time. Make sure you start off easy and increment your load progressively.

Remember: Art is not a single method or step done over a weekend but a process of accomplishing remarkable results over time.

You can also watch the video on this topic on my YouTube channel :

Feel free to respond to this blog or comment on the video if you have some tips, questions, or thoughts!

If this tutorial was helpful, you should check out my data science and machine learning courses on Wiplane Academy . They are comprehensive yet compact and helps you build a solid foundation of work to showcase.

Web and Data Science Consultant | Instructional Design

If you read this far, thank the author to show them you care. Say Thanks

Learn to code for free. freeCodeCamp's open source curriculum has helped more than 40,000 people get jobs as developers. Get started

There’s more where this came from!

Enter your email to become part of the Kresser Institute community and get information like this delivered straight to your inbox.

" * " indicates required fields

I hate spam, too. Your email is safe with me. By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy .

How to Critically Read a Research Study

Published on August 2, 2017

by Chris Kresser

As clinicians, it’s vital that we stay current with the literature. Countless scholarly articles are published every day, and it’s important that we are able to critically analyze and integrate relevant new information into practice. Read on to learn two different approaches to reading a scientific paper.

Reading a scholarly article with a critical eye is not an easy task. In this article, I’ll talk about how to approach critically analyzing a research study and what to keep an eye out for.

First, Decide If It’s Worth Reading!

Ever spend half an hour poring through a study only to get to the end and realize it didn’t contain any information that was novel or useful to you? Every day, 11 new systematic reviews and 75 medical trials are published. This number is only increasing. ( 1 ) With so many studies out there, we really need to focus on reading the most salient articles.

Luckily, the abstract provides a quick synopsis that includes the purpose of the study, the most significant findings, and the authors’ conclusions. Before you decide to critically review an article, skim through the abstract to see if it will be useful to you. What are the major ideas? Who were the subjects? What variables were assessed? What were the main findings? Get an idea of what’s to come, but don’t be tempted to just read the abstract: it’s always important that you look at the data yourself and read the full text.

Next, note a few other article characteristics. What journal is the study published in? When was it published? Who are the authors, and what are their affiliations? Flip to the end of the paper and look at the funding source and any potential conflicts of interest. Was this funded by the sugar industry? Knowing this information in advance can help you keep an eye out for biases throughout.

Learn how to spot bias and poor design in research studies

Approach #1: Simple Front to Back

The first approach is to simply read the journal article front to back, in the order that the authors have presented it. This approach works well if you have very little background knowledge about the topic and is great for those who have little experience reading scientific papers and are just getting started.

The introduction of the paper will provide any necessary background information and introduce the rationale for the study. You’ll want to ask yourself: what are the gaps in the literature? What did the authors set out to test, and what was their hypothesis?

You can then usually skip the methods and head right to the results, where the authors will walk you through each figure. If the article is well written, the results section should be understandable without having read the detailed methods section. Feel free to refer to the methods section if necessary to clarify what the authors did, but if it’s not your area of expertise, avoid getting bogged down in unnecessary detail. (For example, if you don’t know what polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis is, it’s probably not worth your time to try to determine whether the researchers performed it correctly.)

Finally, the discussion is where the authors will summarize the results, talk about how the study fits in with other related literature, and offer future directions and implications of their findings. Do the authors acknowledge limitations? Do they provide an unbiased assessment of other literature?

This approach will give you a complete idea of what the researchers did, what they found, and why it might matter. However, it is not the most conducive to critical analysis. As you get more accustomed to reading literature, you’ll want to move towards approach #2.

Approach #2: Results First

The second approach works especially well if you are familiar with the topic. It is also the approach you will want to gravitate toward as you get better at reading papers because it allows you to take a critical eye to the data before being influenced by the authors’ interpretation.

In this approach, you start by skimming the last paragraph of the introduction, before heading right for the results section. This last introductory paragraph typically provides the authors’ rationale for the study and the hypothesis they are trying to test.

You can then jump right into the figures and try to make sense of the data without reading through the text of the results. The main idea here is that you want to avoid reading the authors’ interpretation of the data until you have developed your own opinions. You’d be surprised by the number of published articles in which the text of the results skews or even blatantly contradicts what was shown in the figures. So, work your way through the figures, using the figure legends to help you make sense of things, and flip to the methods to clarify things as necessary.

Only when you have a grasp of the figures and methods should you read the text of the results. See if your interpretation of the data matches what the authors interpreted. Lastly, read the discussion to see if you agree with how this study fits in with the literature. Are there any studies they left out? If you are very familiar with the topic, you can also scrutinize the methods to see if you agree with their methodology.

Understand the Study Design

Was the study performed in humans, animals, or cell culture? Is it an observational or experimental study design? Were the researchers blinded? Were the participants blinded? Was it a short-term or long-term study? What variables/endpoints are they testing? All of these questions should be on your radar when reading through a primary literature article. Understanding the design of the study allows you to be on the lookout for various limitations that are characteristic of different designs. It also can help you to determine the strength of the evidence.

Look for limitations and biases:

• Self-reporting bias: very common in nutritional science research
• Unhealthy user bias: discussed in this podcast
• Confirmation bias
• Correlation vs. causation
• Generalizing to a population that wasn’t included in the study

How are the data presented?

• Relative vs. absolute risk
• What are the axes on the figures?
• What statistics did they use? Are the data significant?

Looking for more resources? I discussed study designs quite a bit in my podcast titled “ A Beginner’s Guide to Scientific Research .” For an example of how to identify limitations, see my article deconstructing an epidemiological red meat study .

Critical Analysis Is a Skill

Like any other skill, developing a critical eye for research papers takes time. Initially, you might need to read a paper a few times to fully understand it or look to other resources for additional background knowledge, but the more you practice, the easier it gets. Try to move more toward the second approach over time, as you become more comfortable with the literature, and be sure to experiment. I’ve presented the most common approaches here, but it’s more important that you find an approach that works best for you.

Learn from Others

Hearing other researchers’ interpretations of a study can be helpful, especially for topics that you are less familiar with. You can achieve this by starting a journal club at your clinic or institution, or joining the discussion online.

ResearchGate: A great option to read and discuss publications with other clinicians and researchers and access full-text articles. You must be a member of an institution to join.

Wiki Journal Club: A “collaborative website providing concise summaries of landmark clinical trials.” Wiki Journal Club attempts to present any limitations, criticisms, and issues with the study, along with its results, in an objective manner. Anyone can view without being a user, and any registered user can edit. You do not have to have an institutional affiliation.

• Always read with a critical eye. Ask yourself questions as you go.
• Note the study design and use this to think about potential limitations.
• Once you become familiar with a topic, try to move towards the “results first” approach.
• Practice! The more studies you read, the easier it will get to identify limitations and flaws.

We do have to appraise research as part of our training – I use the ARRIVE guidelines for animal studies invivo, NICE guidelines for qualitative and SIGN50 for RCT’s etc. I do read the abstract first and scan the details and whether it related to human nutrition. I also use the guidelines to take what the study has done well and not so well. I like to look at the statistics and P values. Study design and number of participants (100+). This is a basic description but it works well and aids in reflection and critical appraisal is absolutely essential for evidence based medicine, not to mention patient safety. Being able to reflect and also detect bias throughout this process is crucial to professional practice. Thanks

Finally see how to stop getting stuck in a project management tool

20 min. personalized consultation with a project management expert

Smart Note-Taking for Research Paper Writing

How to organize research notes using the Zettelkasten Method when writing academic papers

With plenty of note-taking tips and apps available, online and in paper form, it’s become extremely easy to take note of information, ideas, or thoughts. As simple as it is to write down an idea or jot down a quote, the skill of academic research and writing for a thesis paper is on another level entirely. And keeping a record or an archive of all of the information you need can quickly require a very organized system.

The use of index cards seems old-fashioned considering that note-taking apps (psst! Hypernotes ) offer better functionality and are arguably more user-friendly. However, software is only there to help aid our individual workflow and thinking process. That’s why understanding and learning how to properly research, take notes and write academic papers is still a highly valuable skill.

Let’s Start Writing! But Where to Start…

Writing academic papers is a vital skill most students need to learn and practice. Academic papers are usually time-intensive pieces of written content that are a requirement throughout school or at University. Whether a topic is assigned or you have to choose your own, there’s little room for variation in how to begin.

Popular and purposeful in analyzing and evaluating the knowledge of the author as well as assessing if the learning objectives were met, research papers serve as information-packed content. Most of us may not end up working jobs in academic professions or be researchers at institutions, where writing research papers is also part of the job, but we often read such papers. 

Despite the fact that most research papers or dissertations aren’t often read in full, journalists, academics, and other professionals regularly use academic papers as a basis for further literary publications or blog articles. The standard of academic papers ensures the validity of the information and gives the content authority. 

There’s no-nonsense in research papers. To make sure to write convincing and correct content, the research stage is extremely important. And, naturally, when doing any kind of research, we take notes.

Why Take Notes?

There are particular standards defined for writing academic papers . In order to meet these standards, a specific amount of background information and researched literature is required. Taking notes helps keep track of read/consumed literary material as well as keeps a file of any information that may be of importance to the topic. 

The aim of writing isn’t merely to advertise fully formed opinions, but also serves the purpose of developing opinions worth sharing in the first place. 

What is Note-Taking?

Note-taking (sometimes written as notetaking or note-taking ) is the practice of recording information from different sources and platforms. For academic writing, note-taking is the process of obtaining and compiling information that answers and supports the research paper’s questions and topic. Notes can be in one of three forms: summary, paraphrase, or direct quotation.

Note-taking is an excellent process useful for anyone to turn individual thoughts and information into organized ideas ready to be communicated through writing. Notes are, however, only as valuable as the context. Since notes are also a byproduct of the information we consume daily, it’s important to categorize information, develop connections, and establish relationships between pieces of information. 

What Type of Notes Can I Take?

• Explanation of complex theories
• Background information on events or persons of interest
• Definitions of terms
• Quotations of significant value
• Illustrations or graphics

Note-Taking 101

Taking notes or doing research for academic papers shouldn’t be that difficult, considering we take notes all the time. Wrong. Note-taking for research papers isn’t the same as quickly noting down an interesting slogan or cool quote from a video, putting it on a sticky note, and slapping it onto your bedroom or office wall.

Note-taking for research papers requires focus and careful deliberation of which information is important to note down, keep on file, or use and reference in your own writing. Depending on the topic and requirements of your research paper from your University or institution, your notes might include explanations of complex theories, definitions, quotations, and graphics. 

Stages of Research Paper Writing

1. Preparation Stage

Before you start, it’s recommended to draft a plan or an outline of how you wish to begin preparing to write your research paper. Make note of the topic you will be writing on, as well as the stylistic and literary requirements for your paper.

2. Research Stage

In the research stage, finding good and useful literary material for background knowledge is vital. To find particular publications on a topic, you can use Google Scholar or access literary databases and institutions made available to you through your school, university, or institution. 

Make sure to write down the source location of the literary material you find. Always include the reference title, author, page number, and source destination. This saves you time when formatting your paper in the later stages and helps keep the information you collect organized and referenceable.

In the worst-case scenario, you’ll have to do a backward search to find the source of a quote you wrote down without reference to the original literary material. 

3. Writing Stage

When writing, an outline or paper structure is helpful to visually break up the piece into sections. Once you have defined the sections, you can begin writing and referencing the information you have collected in the research stage.

Clearly mark which text pieces and information where you relied on background knowledge, which texts are directly sourced, and which information you summarized or have written in your own words. This is where your paper starts to take shape.  

4. Draft Stage

After organizing all of your collected notes and starting to write your paper, you are already in the draft stage. In the draft stage, the background information collected and the text written in your own words come together. Every piece of information is structured by the subtopics and sections you defined in the previous stages. 

5. Final Stage

Success! Well… almost! In the final stage, you look over your whole paper and check for consistency and any irrelevancies. Read through the entire paper for clarity, grammatical errors , and peace of mind that you have included everything important. 

Make sure you use the correct formatting and referencing method requested by your University or institution for research papers. Don’t forget to save it and then send the paper on its way.

Best Practice Note-Taking Tips

• Find relevant and authoritative literary material through the search bar of literary databases and institutions.
• Practice citation repeatedly! Always keep a record of the reference book title, author, page number, and source location. At best, format the citation in the necessary format from the beginning. 
• Organize your notes according to topic or reference to easily find the information again when in the writing stage. Work invested in the early stages eases the writing and editing process of the later stages.
• Summarize research notes and write in your own words as much as possible. Cite direct quotes and clearly mark copied text in your notes to avoid plagiarism.  

Take Smart Notes

Taking smart notes isn’t as difficult as it seems. It’s simply a matter of principle, defined structure, and consistency. Whether you opt for a paper-based system or use a digital tool to write and organize your notes depends solely on your individual personality, needs, and workflow.

With various productivity apps promoting diverse techniques, a good note-taking system to take smart notes is the Zettelkasten Method . Invented by Niklas Luhmann, a german sociologist and researcher, the Zettelkasten Method is known as the smart note-taking method that popularized personalized knowledge management. 

As a strategic process for thinking and writing, the Zettelkasten Method helps you organize your knowledge while working, studying, or researching. Directly translated as a ‘note box’, Zettelkasten is simply a framework to help organize your ideas, thoughts, and information by relating pieces of knowledge and connecting pieces of information to each other.

Hypernotes is a note-taking app that can be used as a software-based Zettelkasten, with integrated features to make smart note-taking so much easier, such as auto-connecting related notes, and syncing to multiple devices. In each notebook, you can create an archive of your thoughts, ideas, and information. 

Using the tag system to connect like-minded ideas and information to one another and letting Hypernotes do its thing with bi-directional linking, you’ll soon create a web of knowledge about anything you’ve ever taken note of. This feature is extremely helpful to navigate through the enormous amounts of information you’ve written down. Another benefit is that it assists you in categorizing and making connections between your ideas, thoughts, and saved information in a single notebook. Navigate through your notes, ideas, and knowledge easily.

Ready, Set, Go!

Writing academic papers is no simple task. Depending on the requirements, resources available, and your personal research and writing style, techniques, apps, or practice help keep you organized and increase your productivity. 

Whether you use a particular note-taking app like Hypernotes for your research paper writing or opt for a paper-based system, make sure you follow a particular structure. Repeat the steps that help you find the information you need quicker and allow you to reproduce or create knowledge naturally.

Images from NeONBRAND , hana_k and Surface via Unsplash 

A well-written piece is made up of authoritative sources and uses the art of connecting ideas, thoughts, and information together. Good luck to all students and professionals working on research paper writing! We hope these tips help you in organizing the information and aid your workflow in your writing process.

Cheers, Jessica and the Zenkit Team

FREE 20 MIN. CONSULTATION WITH A PROJECT MANAGEMENT EXPERT

Wanna see how to simplify your workflow with Zenkit in less than a day?

• digital note app
• how to smart notes
• how to take notes
• hypernotes note app
• hypernotes take notes
• note archive software
• note taking app for students
• note taking tips
• note-taking
• note-taking app
• organize research paper
• reading notes
• research note taking
• research notes
• research paper writing
• smart notes
• taking notes zettelkasten method
• thesis writing
• writing a research paper
• writing a thesis paper
• zettelkasten method

More from Karen Bradford

10 Ways to Remember What You Study

More from Kelly Moser

How Hot Desking Elevates the Office Environment in 2024

More from Chris Harley

8 Productivity Tools for Successful Content Marketing

2 thoughts on “ Smart Note-Taking for Research Paper Writing ”

Thanks for sending really an exquisite text.

Great article thank you for sharing!

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.

Zenkit Comment Policy

At Zenkit, we strive to post helpful, informative, and timely content. We want you to feel welcome to comment with your own thoughts, feedback, and critiques, however we do not welcome inappropriate or rude comments. We reserve the right to delete comments or ban users from commenting as needed to keep our comments section relevant and respectful.

What we encourage:

• Smart, informed, and helpful comments that contribute to the topic. Funny commentary is also thoroughly encouraged.
• Constructive criticism, either of the article itself or the ideas contained in it.
• Found technical issues with the site? Send an email to [email protected] and specify the issue and what kind of device, operating system, and OS version you are using.
• Noticed spam or inappropriate behaviour that we haven’t yet sorted out? Flag the comment or report the offending post to [email protected] .

What we’d rather you avoid:

Rude or inappropriate comments.

We welcome heated discourse, and we’re aware that some topics cover things people feel passionately about. We encourage you to voice your opinions, however in order for discussions to remain constructive, we ask that you remember to criticize ideas, not people.

Please avoid:

• name-calling
• ad hominem attacks
• responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content
• knee-jerk contradiction

Comments that we find to be hateful, inflammatory, threatening, or harassing may be removed. This includes racist, gendered, ableist, ageist, homophobic, and transphobic slurs and language of any sort. If you don’t have something nice to say about another user, don't say it. Treat others the way you’d like to be treated.

Trolling or generally unkind behaviour

If you’re just here to wreak havoc and have some fun, and you’re not contributing meaningfully to the discussions, we will take actions to remove you from the conversation. Please also avoid flagging or downvoting other users’ comments just because you disagree with them.

Every interpretation of spamming is prohibited. This means no unauthorized promotion of your own brand, product, or blog, unauthorized advertisements, links to any kind of online gambling, malicious sites, or otherwise inappropriate material.

Comments that are irrelevant or that show you haven’t read the article

We know that some comments can veer into different topics at times, but remain related to the original topic. Be polite, and please avoid promoting off-topic commentary. Ditto avoid complaining we failed to mention certain topics when they were clearly covered in the piece. Make sure you read through the whole piece before saying your piece!

Breaches of privacy

This should really go without saying, but please do not post personal information that may be used by others for malicious purposes. Please also do not impersonate authors of this blog, or other commenters (that’s just weird).