Chapter 2 Reading Scientific Literature
Learning how to read scientific writing is an important step in learning to write it well.
Most scientific writers assume their readers know the vocabulary and accepted styles and formats for sharing information in their field. The best way to learn those conventions and assumptions is to read published work from that field. Instead of just looking at the scientific arguments or conclusions though, pay attention to how the author has organized and presented information.
2.1 Reading As a Writer
Scientists write primary research articles to outline, summarize, and share the details of their experiments. Review articles (sometimes called secondary literature) summarize primary literature and provide a broader overview of a topic or field. Review articles also can lay out the evidence on each side of a controversial field, or competing theories about how a process works. Ultimately some of this information is included in books like your textbook.
Reading scientific articles efficiently is an important skill that develops with time and practice. You can develop this skill faster if you approach articles skeptically and strategically.
2.1.1 Reading Skeptically
Scientists rarely accept something without evidence. One of the first questions you should ask as a skeptic-in-training is, “how do I know the author is trustworthy? Are they following accepted conventions of the field? How do I know they are not misleading me?” This is why we put so much emphasis on using peer-reviewed sources. “Peer review” means that the article you are reading was sent to two or more members of the scientific community who work in that particular field. They have read it, and told the author where to make corrections so the article meets the standards and expectations of their field. The editor of the journal may have given the author recommendations too.
When the editor approves an article for publication, they are saying “other scientists in this field read this article and they agree with me that it meets our expectations and assumptions, and has something worthwhile to say.” That does not mean what the article says is always 100% correct. Mistakes do slip past the reviewers and editors, which is why you should always look at more than one article.
2.1.2 Reading Strategically
If you have not read many scientific articles, it is natural to try and read them “flat,” meaning from start to end, giving all of the content equal time and attention. This is how you might read a novel or a newspaper article. If you try to read primary research this way, it can take 1-3 hours to work through a 10-page article, and even then you may not get much out of it.
Most scientists DON’T read articles this way. Two readers may be looking at the same article for very different reasons. They read articles strategically, spending most (or all) of their reading effort pulling out the key information they need to meet the goals they had in mind when they started reading. One of the reasons that scientific articles are organized into specific sections (and why we stress format so much) is so readers within the field can find the information they need quickly.
Here are some common goals that scientific readers might have. Each goal requires a slightly different approach to reading. A reader may have more than one goal, but rarely are they trying to achieve all of them at the same time.
| Someone new to a field or topic may want to: | …so they will focus mostly on: |
|---|---|
| Increase their basic background knowledge; | the Introduction section. |
| See examples of overall experimental designs related to their own questions; | the Methods section in general. |
| Learn how to do particular experimental assays or data analysis methods; | descriptions of the assays and analyses, (or the cited sources that describe them); these tend to be towards the end of the Methods section. |
| Find out which statistic methods are used to analyze a particular type of date; | the Statistics section, which tends to be the last part of the Methods. |
| See how particular types of results or data are summarized and displayed; | the graphs, tables, and figures in the Results. |
| Know what the rules are for the topic for claims, evidence, and reasoning; | what is presented and focused on in the Discussion. |
| Learn how data and evidence from studies by others has been interpreted (what the field accepts as reasonable); | the interpretations in the Discussion. |
With practice, strategic reading goals become even more focused. For example:
| Someone with more experience may want to: | …so they will focus mostly on: |
|---|---|
| Get a deep understanding of a particular question that interests them; | how the story told by the Introduction is organized, & what prior knowledge is emphasized. |
| Find out where other professionals are getting reagents or study organisms; | the list of sources, or where the authors say they got materials. (Sometimes it is not in the article, so you must write the authors and ask them.) |
| Identify & understand controversies or unanswered questions; | differences in the stories told in the Discussion section by authors from different labs. |
| Put their own study into a larger context; | the narrative in the Discussion. What do other authors say is important? Why? |
| Compare their results to what others have reported; | the data tables and figures, in particular how the trends they observed compare to published work by others. |
| Find additional articles that could be useful for interpreting their own work; | the full list of Literature Cited. |
| What the influential labs, authors, and papers in the field are; | which papers and authors are listed in the Literature Cited; which authors show up repeatedly. |
2.2 Remember To THINK While You Read
This might sound silly, but many students read scientific literature under the faulty assumption that “it’s published, so it HAS to be true.” As a result, when you read a scientific article but do not understand it, you are tempted to think you are somehow at fault. Instead, take a step back and ask yourself, “why am I confused?”
- Do I not have the needed background knowledge? What am I missing? (It’s Google time!)
- Is the argument flawed somehow? Does the evidence not back up their claims?
- Is the writing not clear? Could this author have told the story more clearly?”
Taking a step back to ask “why” is called metacognition, which literally means thinking about your own thinking. It is a simple yet very powerful learning strategy. The more you do it, the faster your scientific reading AND writing skills will develop.
Thinking about WHY you are confused does several things simultaneously. First, it turns down that annoying voice in the back of your head saying “I can’t do this!” No, you are not the only one who has that little “doubt gremlin;” other students and even your professors regularly doubt their ability to understand things. Your professors simply have learned how to identify where and why they are confused. That brings us to another important point: if you can identify the source of your confusion, you can address it more quickly.
Metacognition also turns what you read into a dialogue. We’re going to let you in on a little secret: just because something is published it does not mean it is well written, communicates clearly, or is even true. “Peer reviewed” means an article has been read by others working in the field who think it is worthwhile for others to read. It does not mean an article is perfect. Sometimes you are confused because the author was unclear.
2.3 Practicing Reading Scientific Literature
This page describes three exercises that you can do on your own anytime to improve your literature reading skills.