So many papers, so little time – this sentiment encapsulates the challenge faced by scientists, doctors, and interested laypersons when navigating the scientific literature. In the realm of research papers, mastering the art of effective introduction for research paper is crucial. The scientific paper necessitates a skillful dissection to extract valuable information. The process of reviewing an entire original research paper is indeed a challenge.
Whether a reviewer dedicates mere minutes or extensive hours, the analysis of a single paper demands attention. Even ordinary readers, in their pursuit of preparing oral or written reports, may invest two to six hours in comprehending a 5–10 page paper.
Goals and Approaches to Critical Reviews of Scientific Papers
A typical reviewer’s goals are to:
-
establish the main and relevant findings.
-
verify that the experiments have been done correctly and
-
justify the findings and identify problems or questions that might remain.
Critical and focused thinking is required for all science reviews. Biological and medical texts summarize original publications as large as 10–30 pages in one or two sentences. A paper of ten thousand words may be summarized in 100 words, only 1% of the original content.
Scientific Paper Review Process, Important Questions to Ask
-
Based on the Title, is this a relevant paper of interest? Yes or No.
-
How significant is this paper? High, Medium, or Low?
-
Abstract — What are the paper's new facts or discoveries?
-
Materials and Methods — What was used and how was it done? What are the controls?
-
Results — Are the data, tables, and figures, clear and supportive?
-
Discussion/Conclusions — What ideas and issues relate to the findings and data?
-
Personal summary — What is most important? What is unresolved and worthy of future questions and research?
Scientific Paper Review Requires Good, Critical Notes, Probing Questions, and Solid Answers
Critical notes, probing questions, and needed clarifications are important to a good understanding of research papers. Reviewers should be alert, inquisitive, and somewhat skeptical critics. Exceptional, well-done reviews may provide the basis for new, innovative approaches to the very problem being reviewed.
A copy of the paper is important for direct notations during the review.
Note-taking and critical questioning are important parts of the thinking and critique process:
-
What is important here?
-
Why isn't this clear?
-
How can that be?
-
That is good, well done, clear, and verified.
A Functional Review of Each Part of a Scientific Paper
-
The title highlights the main points of interest, design, or findings of the research.
-
An abstract summarizes many relevant research findings; always should be read before any subsequent parts of the paper
-
The introduction provides a brief background of prior research, and historical foundations, and it sets the stage for the current research paper; also, it provides the main theme, or hypothesis, of the paper.
-
Materials and Methods versus Results – What should be reviewed next? Although Materials and Methods is very important and follows the Introduction, Results should probably be read next. Why? Because the details of the Materials and Methods can overwhelm most readers or reviewers.
-
Results are experiments performed and data obtained. All tables, figures, and the corresponding, appropriate legends in the Results are important and provide the core, significant findings of the paper. Sometimes much of the results can be understood solely by review of the tables and figures. A reviewer is urged to read everything in Results at least two times to better understand and write a compelling conclusion for the research paper.
-
Discussion next, or Materials and Methods? If the Results were understood, then reading the Discussion next is good. It may be appropriate to review Materials and Methods to make sense of the Results and the Discussion parts of a paper. Much depends upon how familiar a person is with the actual topic. Familiarity with most of the techniques used in a specialty means that only a brief review of the Materials and Methods is needed. In other instances, a great amount of time must be spent understanding the methods, techniques, procedures, and manipulations of the research in a particular paper.
Summing Up
Presented above are some successful ways to read a scientific paper. The more one reads and critically reviews, the better one usually becomes. Each person should determine what works best.
Scientists, doctors, and interested laypersons face the challenge of dissecting scientific papers in order to extract relevant information.
The reviewing process requires critical thinking and note-taking, with particular attention being paid to the title, abstract, materials and methods, results, discussion/conclusions, and personal summary.
Each part of a scientific paper should be critically reviewed - the title should highlight main points of interest; the abstract should summarize findings; the introduction should set out research background; the results section should include clear data and figures; discussion/conclusions should relate findings to ideas or issues; and a personal summary should provide an overall impression.
