How to Read a Scientific Paper in 5 Steps

[cesanon]

I just thought this might help catalyze a bit more substantive discussion when someone posts a link to a paper.

How to Read a Scientific Paper in 5 Steps

curiosity.com/topics/how-to...

In a perfect world, we'd all have access to the same information, the training to make the right judgments about it, and the wisdom to know how it should be implemented. But the fact is, we don't. Scientific research is often blocked behind paywalls, and even when it's freely available, few people have the ability or patience to wade through its scientific jargon. That's why websites like this one exist: to wade through it for you and put it into language that's easy to understand. But if you really want to be a responsible consumer of information, sometimes you've got to wade through it yourself. And for that, we've got this handy guide. Here's how you can read a scientific paper and actually understand what it means.

MangoStar_Studio / iStock / Getty Images Plus

First Things First: How to Get Access

That thing we said about paywalls is definitely no joke: More than three-quarters of scholarly papers on the web are only available if you're either affiliated with a university or another institution that can afford a subscription, or you can afford to buy them (usually at about the price of a tank of gas). But there are online tools out there that can help: Google Scholar search results will usually indicate if there's a PDF of the paper freely (and legally) available, and Chrome extensions like Unpaywall and Open Access Button will automatically search the web for a free and legal version. There's also the old-fashioned way: Just contact the authors and ask. As Canadian researcher Dr. Holly Witteman noted on Twitter, "If you just email us to ask for our papers, we are allowed to send them to you for free, and we will be genuinely delighted to do so."

ADVERTISING

Step 1: Skim and Take Notes

Most scientific articles follow the structure known as IMRAD, which stands for Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. Sometimes they go by different names and sometimes there are extra sections, but this is the rough outline that the majority follow. Check out where each of these sections are located and get a feel for what each one is trying to accomplish. If you see terms you don't understand, write them down so you can look them up later. Pro tip: Most acronyms are usually defined the first time they're used in a paper, so a quick control + F search to find that first mention can be helpful.

Check the publish date so you know how fresh this research is, and give the journal title a sniff test — journals like Science and Nature are easy to judge as reputable, but if you've never heard of the publication before, make sure it's not one of the many fake or predatory journals out there. It helps to check the journal's impact factor.

Step 2: Re-read, But Don't Start at the Beginning

At the very top of the paper (and in most cases, even before you get through the paywall), there's an abstract, which summarizes the entire paper. One of the most common mistakes people make with reading scientific papers is to read the abstract and move on with their life. Not only is this a hard-to-read section that gives you a small fraction of the information you're looking for, but it's also biased: It says what the authors think is important. You're reading this article to judge that for yourself, aren't you?

Instead, start with the introduction. The introduction gives the lay of the land, so to speak, and explains what previous researchers have done in this particular area of study. That's important for a layperson who's just dropping in: "Why are they testing X with Z when Y seems like the more obvious route?" "Well, because some researchers in 1998 tried testing X with Y and it didn't work out too well." The introduction is also the most clearly written part of most papers. Cherish it while you can.

Step 3: Check Out the Discussion

All this skipping around might feel like heresy if this were a traditional piece of literature, but scientific papers aren't designed to tell you the dramatic story of their discoveries; they're just designed so that other scientists can repeat the experiment. That means that you're well within your rights to skip ahead and see how the experiment turned out. The discussion section will usually give you a pretty clear picture of the paper's findings, but you'll also be left with a few questions. That's what you want. Write them down, then see if you can answer them in the next step.

Step 4: Get into the Nitty-Gritty

Here's where you read through the results and perhaps the methods section, look up any terms you don't understand, and take a close look at any numbers or measurements used. Here are a few to be mindful of:

Sample Size

You can usually find this in the methods section, either as a phrase like "A total of 100 participants" or after the letter "n," as in "n=100." A larger sample size means it's less likely that the results were just a fluke. Don't dismiss an experiment for having a small sample size, however: Depending on the area of study and the statistical methods used, experiments using smaller sample sizes can be perfectly legitimate. A quick comparison with other similar studies can help here.

The Word "Signficiant"

Like many terms, this one means something totally different in science than it does in casual conversation. If you or I said a result was "significant," we'd mean something like "important" or "noteworthy"; if a scientist writes it, they mean that the result was statistically unlikely to have arisen by random chance — that is, it's probably for real. Statistical significance is usually measured with a "p-value," or a number that measures just how real the result probably was. If p equals less than 0.05 or 0.01 (depending on the field of study) it's considered statistically significant.

Standard Deviation and Confidence Intervals

Nothing in science is said with 100 percent certainty, and a confidence interval (CI) is a measure of just how uncertain things are. If a scientist wanted to take data about a sample of a population and extrapolate it to say things about the whole population, they'd probably be mostly right — with a sliver of doubt. The CI is a frequently misunderstood measure (even many scientists don't understand it), but suffice it to say this number just tells you how accurate their statistical methods were.

To determine the confidence interval, you need the standard deviation, sometimes written as "SD." This number is a little easier to understand: it's just a measure of how spread out the data is. You can think of it like an "average of the average." If the average age of a Curiosity reader is 30, for example, that could include a lot of people who are 29 and 31, or it could include a lot of people in grade school and nursing homes. The standard deviation tells you how tightly the data points are clustered around the average, or how narrow the bell curve is. (If you're curious, 30 percent of Curiosity readers are younger than 25 and the majority are between 25 and 44. Where do you fall?)

Step 5: Check Your Understanding

Once you're done finding the answers to any questions you had and looking up any terms that were unclear, do a final review of what you learned and what you still don't understand. Here's a handy list of questions to ask yourself from biology professors Mary Purugganan, Ph.D. and Jan Hewitt, Ph.D. at Rice University:

What specific problem does this research address? Why is it important?

Is the method used a good one? The best one?

What are the specific findings? Am I able to summarize them in one or two sentences?

Are the findings supported by persuasive evidence?

Is there an alternative interpretation of the data that the author did not address?

How are the findings unique/new/unusual or supportive of other work in the field?

How do these results relate to the work I'm interested in? To other work I've read about?

What are some of the specific applications of the ideas presented here? What are some further experiments that would answer remaining questions

[teamkv]

Thank you so much for this.

[Kuanyin]

Thank you. Another large obstacle, at least for me, is the measurements usually used in scientific papers. For example, ng/mL, pg/mL,mlU, μM and so on. Since these are different kinds of measurements they really don't convert easily to mg/mg which most of us use. Calling or sending letters to the researchers about converting results from mice studies to the equivalents for humans either doesn't get a reply or a very guarded one, such as "take the paper to your physician to discuss with him." I have found at times, when I do learn what the therapeutic dose is (converted from mice), it is often very high, bordering on toxic in many cases. So, while it's great to know the information you have provided for us, to use a cable TV term, "the last mile," (measurements used) needs to be clarified.

[cesanon in reply to Kuanyin]

1. Interesting that they are using absurdly high does with mice, but there is a logic to error in that direction.

2. Why do you care about doses as you won't get access to any such drugs other than what is prescribed to you.

[Kuanyin in reply to cesanon]

I am not talking about drugs but plant and herb-derived substances. I know that you are not interested, however, the problem still remains. I thought you were talking about scientific literacy, not what I take!

[cesanon in reply to Kuanyin]

I actually have an interest in supplements, subject to concerns about quality and predictability of dosing.

But I see your issue about dose & level information.

Still, even if you know the dosing of a study on rats:

(A) it would seem impossible to translate that to humans, without human trials,

(B) even with human data from trials, how do you assure dosing accuracy and quality assurance, if you want to replicate their protocol?

Seems the only way to do that is to set up your own FDA compliant mfg in the USA (you really can't trust anything that comes out of India or China).

[Kuanyin in reply to cesanon]

Here's the problem: if we wait around for either the FDA or BigPharma to do the tests and trials to provide what you have just outlined, most of us won't be around for the results. Also, the so-called standardized products will be absurdly over-priced so that, in the end, we won't be able to afford them because, I don't know about your health insurance policy, but mine seems to cover fewer procedures each year, as well as an increase in co-pay and deductibles for medication and physician visits. I continue to take my prescribed meds like a good boy, but, at the same time, I do hope that some obscure Chinese or Japanese researcher will come up with things that may, just may, put a finger on the scale weighted in my favor.

[cesanon in reply to Kuanyin]

Obamacare makes it hard for them to screw with you on procedures. The drugs, well I guess they bought off too many Repub votes, and they get to screw us there.

You can't even trust prescription drugs that come out of China. LOL the Indian aryuvedic and the TCM stuff, they don't even know what's in it.

Lef.org seems to have a reputation for thoroughly testing all of its shipments from its suppliers.

What supplements or herbs are you currently taking and where do you source them?

[Kuanyin in reply to cesanon]

This is my last reply on this subject. Discussions with you often go off the rails into the deep end. As for the Chinese, if you look at the papers coming out of accredited Chinese universities, you will see that the researchers jump through all of the hoops of preparation done by ours. Test materials are purified and standardized according to rigorous procedures; the animals used, xenografts, etc. also all done according to SOP. Whether or not there is some Mickey-Mousing going on, well, I have seen numerous papers done by our scientists at very prestigious universities, that were recalled. A few years ago, reports of these scandals often appeared in the popular press. In fact, there is an on-going multi-million dollar lawsuit against a famous biotech researcher who faked results from a so-called new type of blood test she claimed to have invented. Anyway, my point is that although most of the herbs we buy from Chinese apothecaries are probably not standardized (unless we buy them from Vitacost), it is what it is. This is the hand we are dealt and we either play our cards or fold.

[cesanon in reply to Kuanyin]

I was talking about Chinese vendors. These quality problems have been acknowledged by the Chinese government.

The Chinese don't trust Chinese vendors. And the Chinese are even more contemptuous of Western customers. They just don't care.

[Don1157]

Great job!

[Schwah]

Cesanon, you are an enigma. I know of no better word to describe you based upon Your varied activity on this site. As with all things in life, I try and take the good with the bad, trying to ignore the bad and appreciate the good....And I must say that I do appreciate the good you do here and the time you take to help others. Thank you.

Schwah.

[cesanon in reply to Schwah]

I speak the truth. Some people like that. Others do not.

Seems a lot of people here get twitchy over ideas . Crazy, no?

Ideas.

So they don't like an idea. They can't refute it. They respond with anger. Then go adhominum. I think that should reflect more on them than on me. And should reflect even less on the validity or content of my message.

[Schwah]

Religion and faith are very sensitive subjects to many people. They are the two most common reasons for war in the world for hundreds if not thousands of years. I’ve learned it’s best not to criticize people’s, religion, wife, kids or dog. Virtually everything else will keep you out of trouble.

Schwah.

[cesanon in reply to Schwah]

So why would you bring this subject up and throw it in my face if you are aware of the depth of my feelings about it?

And keep in mind that I believe quite strongly that

Wealth & Health theology is to true faith-based Christianity

As

ISIS is to moderate Westernized Islam

So how would you respond to some ISIS person posting that adherence to Islamic fundamentalism should be a part of your treatment protocol?

Praying for the wealth and health of you and yours is so self absorbed, and so narcissistic, and so primitive. And for some reason it is mostly present in the USA, Africa and portions of South America.

Why do you think that is? I have often wondered. It also seems to be overly represented in the demographics of Trump supporters. Strangely a lot of whom are still invested in a failed insurrection often referred to as the US civil war.

To me, it seems more like some form of voodoo than faith based Christianity.

If you notice, I am not the one who keeps bringing their unique religious views into an international forum that is supposed to dedicated to a specific medical disease.

Voodoo, faith healing, Scientology, and Christian Scientist treatment refusal doctrine are perhaps best reserved for forums intended for such discussion.

[Hidden in reply to cesanon]

cesanon - This group is NOT the place to rant about religion and/or politics. Save your BS for people who are gullible enough to listen. You won't find those people here. In other words, knock off the pseudointellectual garbage that you spew out of your mouth. To quote you;

"Why do you think that is? I have often wondered. It also seems to be overly represented in the demographics of Trump supporters. Strangely a lot of whom are still invested in a failed insurrection often referred to as the US civil war". WTF is that?

[cesanon in reply to Hidden]

Bill48162

When someone is reduced to ad hominum attacks, it normally means....

Well you know what it means, don't you? Ohhh maybe you don't.

Do you know what ad hominum means? If not I encourage you to look it up: "(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining."

Thank you

Qanon

[cesanon in reply to Hidden]

Bill48162 (Bill Please, respond in private if you have the need to respond)

Oh wait, I now see what you are referring to: ""Strangely a lot of whom are still invested in a failed insurrection often referred to as the US civil war". WTF is that?" Bill48162

In response to your question "WTF is that?" regarding the phrase "failed insurrection" see the following:

"Insurrection" = taking up arms against the United States of America

"Failed" = see generally my favorite peer-reviewed journal: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherm... ("The operation broke the back of the Confederacy")

"pa·tri·ot" = "a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors (foreign and domestic)."

"traitor" = "one who commits treason"

"treason" = "the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government. (aka the "United States of America" as duly constituted both today and on April 12, 1861 the date of the unprovoked attack on Fort Sumpter by traitorous citizens of the United States of America.)

For conterveiling views see generally: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sover... (Sovereign Citizen Movement")

I hope that answers your question, but if you have any more questions on this subject, I submit you take it into private chat.

Please, respond in private if you have the need to respond.

Thank you

Qanon

PS: Why don't we all return to talking about Prostate Cancer and evidence-based diagnostic and treatment protocols?

[j-o-h-n]

Thanks, I just read your post using those 5 steps.

Good Luck and Good Health.

j-o-h-n Wednesday 08/08/2018 1:52 PM EDT

[braddockroad]

Thanks for the primer on reading study reports.

[cesanon in reply to braddockroad]

Dear braddockroad

Don't forget, often the poster understands the study very well and is more than willing to answer questions.

If you read this article it will help you to ask the right questions.