GoKawiilDeconstructing papers systematically is an essential skill that allows you to critique authors’ arguments, verify their data and form your own conclusions.Credit: fizkes / Shutterstock
Reading a primary-research paper can feel like trying to decipher an ancient text, or at least it has in my career. From a foundation in biomedical science and medicine, I am now a trainee in paediatrics working towards a PhD in pathology at the University of Cambridge, UK. This work involves using systems biology to investigate mechanisms of therapy resistance in some cancers in children. As I build towards my goal of becoming a physician-scientist, I am continually reading massive amounts of complex, dense literature.
Although there is no universal framework for pulling apart a dense primary paper, having a consistent method is crucial. I now apply the same foundational technique whether I am reading an article for my own work or conducting formal peer review for a journal. When supervising medical students, I explain that you cannot simply read a paper from start to finish like a novel, regardless of what side of the publication process you are on. You need a more systematic approach if you want to deconstruct the authors’ arguments, verify their data and form your own conclusions.
How reliable is this research? Tool flags papers discussed on PubPeer
To help to bridge the gap between passively reading literature and actively analysing it, I’ve developed a seven-step framework, split into three phases. I usually record my thoughts with pen and paper in a laboratory notebook, but including the same information in the relevant section of reference management software also works.
Phase 1: the aerial view
Before you get bogged down in the minutiae of P values and complex assays, you need to understand the landscape of the paper. This phase is about gathering context.
Step 1: get a broad overview. Resist the urge to dive straight into dense methodology. Instead, scan the abstract and review the figures to get a high-level understanding of how the research was conducted. For example, is this a longitudinal cohort study, a CRISPR knockout screen or a computational model? Getting a broad sense of the tools and scope early on will anchor your understanding when you read the rest of the paper.
Step 2: identify the core research question. Every good piece of research hinges on a single, definable question. Although the title and abstract offer hints, the true research question is usually found at the end of the introduction. Find out what specific hypothesis is being tested and make a note of it. As you read through the rest of the study, refer back to this to see whether the authors stayed on track.
Step 3: map the existing knowledge gap. Research doesn’t happen in a vacuum; it builds on previous work. A critical reader should understand why the research is being conducted at that moment. Read the introduction to see how the authors frame the current state of the field. I try to get some questions clear in my head before reading on: what is already known about this topic? What piece of the puzzle is this paper trying to fill? Why does filling this gap matter?
... continue reading