Now on ScienceBlogs: Charles Darwin February 12, 1809 - April 19, 1882

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Search

Profile

profilepic9-09a.jpg

My scientific specialty is chronobiology (circadian rhythms and photoperiodism), with additional interests in comparative physiology, animal behavior and evolution. I am not an MD so I cannot diagnose and treat your sleep problems. As well as writing this blog, I am also the Online Discussion Expert for PLoS. This is a personal blog and opinions within it in no way reflect the policies of PLoS. You can contact me at: Coturnix@gmail.com


Buy the 2009 Science Blogging Anthology:

The Open Laboratory

Buy the 2008 Science Blogging Anthology:

The Open Laboratory

Buy the 2007 Science Blogging Anthology:

The Open Laboratory

Buy the 2006 Science Blogging Anthology:

The Open Laboratory

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll

Research Blogging Awards 2010


Find me on...


Homepage

FriendFeed

Twitter

Facebook

Nature Network

YouTube

Flickr

Dopplr

Stumbleupon

LinkedIn

Make Me Happy

Add this blog to my Technorati Favorites!

Add Scienceblogs to your Technorati Favorites!

Make Me Solvent

A Blog Around The Clock swag store

I Support

Quail Ridge Books

Carrboro Coworking

Project Exploration

Project Exploration

Bloggie Stuff

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.

« ClockQuotes | Main | My picks from ScienceDaily »

How to read a scientific paper

Category: AcademiaOpen Science
Posted on: July 18, 2008 11:02 AM, by Coturnix

Here is a good example. Step-by-step.

Share on Facebook
Share on StumbleUpon
Share on Facebook
Find more posts in: Education & Careers

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/76565

Comments

1

Thanks for linking. I'm glad you like the post.

Posted by: Bill K. | July 18, 2008 7:53 PM

2

The advice started out reasonable: first read the abstract, and then the figures and figure legends. It then veers sharply downhill. What about the fucking Results!? You know, where the authors tell you what they did and what they observed! If you go right to the "Conclusions", "Discussion", and "Introduction" sections without reading the Results, you are setting yourself up to buy into the marketing hype.

Posted by: PhysioProf | July 19, 2008 1:50 PM

3

Lay-people read (and should read) the scientific papers differently. It is OK for laymen to skip over the hard parts. I start with Refernces, then dig through the Materials and Methods, then figures/results in parallel. I will read the rest only if it is really important for me. But I see why lay audience should do quite the opposite - their goals are different.

Posted by: Coturnix | July 21, 2008 12:37 AM

ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter

© 2006-2011 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.