How to Read a Scientific Research Paper
Abstract
The study sheds light on the importance of reading a scientific paper that is never taught. Scientific articles are different from other texts, novels or newspaper stories; thus, they should be read differently. Reading is a common skill that learners and researchers learn. With the exponential spread of knowledge, no one has time to read everything. In fact, reading original research, though time consuming, is effective and crucial for development. Based on previous background, the reader should select papers with which he is already familiar. Rather than starting from the beginning.
This article outlines a practical and efficient method for reading research papers. It also describes how to use this method to review any kind of paper. It is always better to approach a paper by reading the conclusions in the abstract first. The methods should be next reviewed, then the results-first in the abstract, and then the full paper. For efficacy, reasons should not be read or reviewed any further in the article. Keshav’ s Three Pass Approach proved to be effective in reviewing any type of papers. By adopting such an approach along with critical and creative readings, many papers will be evaluated and read, in addition, the peer-review process will be facilitated.
References
Bennich, T., Weitz, N., & Carlsen, H. (2020). Deciphering the scientific literature on SDG interactions: A review and reading guide. Science of the Total Environment, 138405.
Betancourt, M. (2017). A conceptual introduction to Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.02434. (URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.02434.pdf)
Boumediene, H. (2020). Teaching for the future: toward the development of critical mind in literature reviews’ writing (Doctoral dissertation).
Boumediene, H., Hamadi, N. A., & Fatiha, B. K. (2021). Classroom Debate to Enhance Critical Thinking Skills. El Bahith for sport and social sciences, 4(7).
Boumediene,H.,& Berrahal,F.,& Bava Harji.M. (2018). Writing a Potent Literature Review: Basic Form and Structure. Journal of Social Sciences, Laghouat. 7(29), 284-289 https://www.asjp.cerist.dz/en/article/45900
Carey, M. A., Steiner, K. L., & Petri Jr, W. A. (2020). Ten simple rules for reading a scientific paper.
Cirillo, F. (2018). The Pomodoro Technique: The Life-Changing Time-Management System. Random House.
Cormode, G. (2009). How not to review a paper: The tools and techniques of the adversarial reviewer. ACM SIGMOD Record, 37(4), 100–104. (URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/1519103.1519122)
Cuschieri, S. (2021). Putting Pen to Paper to Publication. In To Do or Not to Do a PhD? (pp. 35-41). Springer, Cham.
Durbin, D. J. (2009). Remaining skeptical: Bridling for and with one another. Field Methods, 21(4), 347
Keshav, S. (2007). How to read a paper. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 37(3), 83–84. (URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/1273445.1273458)
Meier, A. (1992). How to review a technical paper. Energy and Buildings, 19(1), 75–78. (URL: https://eta-intranet.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/how-to-review-a-technical-paper_0.pdf)
Raff, E. (2019). A step toward quantifying independently reproducible machine learning research. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.06674.
Raimondi, G. A., Moreira, C., & de Barros, N. F. (2020). This text is (not) a scientific paper. Qualitative Inquiry, 26(7), 931-940.
Rubin, B. C., Abu El-Haj, T. R., Graham, E., & Clay, K. (2016). Confronting the urban civic opportunity gap: Integrating youth participatory action research into teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(5), 424-436.
Rustum, M. H. (2021). The Effectiveness of Reading Folk Literature in Improving English Language Learners' Reading Proficiency in Elementary Grades. QALAAI ZANIST SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL, 6(1), 1035-1050.
Siegel, W. C. (2020). Impact of a medical journal club on house-staff reading habits, knowledge, and critical appraisal skills: a randomized control trial. Jama, 260(17), 2537-2541.
Subramanian, S., Seedorf, H., Goodman, A. L., ... & Gordon, J. I. (2013). The long-term stability of the human gut microbiota. Science, 341(6141).
Vagle, M. D., Hughes, H. E., & Durbin, D. J. (2009). Remaining skeptical: Bridling for and with one another. Field Methods, 21(4), 347-367.
Copyright (c) 2021 Social Sciences Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
