How to critically read and present scientific literature

1. Read the abstract first, then read the introduction

a. What is the purpose of the study?

b. Are there key references that should be read?

2. Read the results

a. This is the most important part of the paper and is supposed to be objectively written

b. Go over each of the figures carefully and provide detailed, critical analyses of each figure

c. DO NOT ACCEPT WHAT IS WRITTEN/PRESENTED, ALWAYS, ALWAYS QUESTION THE DATA!

3. Read the discussion

a. What message is the author trying to sell?

b. Are the interpretations/conclusions supported by the results?

c. Are there alternative explanations/interpretations?

4. Read the methods

a. Are there weaknesses in the methodology that potentially affect the interpretation of the results?

b. Was the design sound?

c. Was the methodology sound?

d. Were the statistical analyses performed properly?

5. Keep good notes and organize the notes for easy future referencing

How to Read a Scientific Paper

a very useful article from John W. Little and Roy Parker--University of Arizona on how to read a scientific paper.

1.Organization of the paper

2. Reading the paper

a. read title and abstract first. Look up textbook or review paper if necessary; try to integrate the new information into previous knowledge on the topic;

b. then go to introduction (skip it if you are familiar with the topic) and result&discussion.

3. Difficulties in reading

4. Evaluating the paper
a. what question does the paper addressed?
Descriptive research often takes place in the early stages of our understanding of a system.
Comparative research often takes place when we are asking how general a finding is.
Analytical research generally takes place when we know enough to begin formulating hypotheses about how a system works, about how the parts are interconnected, and what the causal connections are.
What are these questions?
Usually in Introduction. Additional question will be answered in result&discussion

b. What are the main conclusions of the paper?(in Abstract)

c. What evidence supports those conclusions?(in Result)

d. Do the data actually support the conclusions?(whether the authors take multiple approaches to answering a question.)

e. What is the quality of that evidence?(critiacl thinking)
First, you need to understand thoroughly the methods used in the experiments.You have to make the extra effort to inform yourself about the basic methodology before you can evaluate the data.Sometimes you have to trace back the details of the methods if they are important.

Second, you need to know the limitations of the methodology. Every method has limitations, and if the experiments are not done correctly they can't be interpreted.

Third, importantly, you need to distinguish between what the data show and what the authors say they show.

Fourth, it is often helpful to look at the original journal, or its electronic counterpart, instead of a photocopy.

Fifth, you should ask if the proper controls are present.

f. Why are the conclusions important?
Do the conclusions make a significant advance in our knowledge? Do they lead to new insights, or even new research directions?