【 以下文字转载自 LifeScience 讨论区 】
发信人: repair (自由者), 信区: LifeScience
标  题: how to read paper(zz)
发信站: BBS 水木清华站 (Tue Oct  7 17:03:23 2003), 转信

标  题: 推荐——如何读paper （ZZ）
发信站: 日月光华 (2003年10月07日16:34:25 星期二), 站内信件


HOW TO READ A PAPER FROM THE PRIMARY ECOLOGICAL LITERATURE


by Michael Palmer August 28, 1994
modified after notes by James Thompson, SUNY

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

1) Do not read a paper chronologically! Read it in the following order:

a) Author's names and year
b) Introduction
c) Abstract
d) Discussion
e) Results
f) Methods

Item a) above sounds unusual - why not read the title? It turns out that peo
ple are very important. Ecologists generally refer to a paper by the author'
s names and the year, and often forget the title. Make a habit of looking fo
r the author's institutional affiliation. This will help you learn where the
major centers of research are in various aspects of ecology.

Read b) through d) repeatedly as necessary. These sections usually define th
e intellectual context of the paper. They will also stress the implications
and the relevance the author believes his/her work has for the wider scienti
fic community.

Read e) and f) to evaluate the work technically. Do the experiments prove or
indicate what the authors claim they do? Are there major limitations? Then
read the discussion again. Do not be preoccupied with details. The detail is
presented to allow highly expert readers to evaluate the technical quality
of the research. This detail is not generally easily interpretable by people
new to the field, and is often not relevant to understanding the more impor
tant scientific objectives and the strategies of the authors.


2) Decide exactly which technical details are relevant to understanding the
author's argument. Then study those particular details. It may be necessary
at this point to consult other primary and secondary literature to retrieve
critical details. The author will cite such literature (if they have not, th
e paper never should have been published!)


3) Analyze the paper by answering the following questions to your satisfacti
on:

a) What is the argument of the author(s)? Remember, the author would usually
not be writing a paper in less there was some message she or he wishes to s
ay.

b) What experimental strategies did the authors use to achieve their objecti
ves? Only describe the most relevant details.

c) Do you believe the evidence is conclusive or merely suggestive?


------------------------------------------------
--
FROM 202.127.16.22