 
- 积分
- 416
- 威望
- 416
- 包包
- 1859
|

How to Read a Scientific Paper 8 M6 }( A- e' Y
Five Helpful Questions
: y1 [( O, c" R( G4 `) r1. WHY did they do this set of experiments? 6 |5 g7 ~, a# z2 P+ r
A. What are the authors trying to settle, prove or demolish? 5 a5 d3 L: m1 Z3 F, f
B. How did this issue come up?
/ v! A* M2 O% @C. Why is it worth the effort to settle this issue?
9 S- Y$ q2 C. I+ {/ O4 s ) i# [; b% W3 r6 ~$ y$ k
2. HOW were the experiments actually done? , L2 H, B4 s7 ^" d# ?0 a2 J
A. What number or quantity was actually measured?
9 e. h% H2 ^2 l1 _4 h6 GB. How was the number in A obtained, i.e. what did they actually do? A flow diagram of
$ u' A3 z* c4 ftheir procedure is usually helpful. 8 l4 l' d5 b! l! D
C. What numbers are really wanted, i.e., must be calculated? ! I9 z/ T5 u# I) U- z
D. What information is necessary to calculate the numbers in C, and where did they get
5 w$ v7 I2 s5 E; `7 y% dthis information (from a table, experimental control, or “common knowledge?’).
K3 ?' K! v5 u5 ], J4 | + N5 r% S+ [1 v: k9 f! s' N) E
3. WHAT are the results? * q7 T+ I% y5 \, p$ ~5 `( L
What is the translation into English of the data in their figures, tables and/or pictures? 6 k' z& Z/ a& ?1 L3 l
The additional Q “How do you actually calculate the numbers wanted in C?’ is implicit in the
. t: w7 K7 r* R. yone. You may want to make this into a separate, explicit Q (2E).
8 O! C. B+ |2 X3 M6 o(This is really a translation of the conclusions and not the results.) For now overlook the
! s* D2 W" l( N7 f& r5 Cdistinction between the results and the (obvious) conclusions in the answer to this question " e% z( }1 Y% G2 w3 f: z6 {
because we have found that it is not worthwhile to stress this issue at the beginning of the 3 Y8 a8 t- {- v, u/ g
term while the students are still struggling with Q 1 and 2. Q 4, which is specifically
& c" o9 H% e6 E; Hdesigned to emphasize this issue is introduced as soon as the students learn how to answer ( [. E1 r7 j1 Z, _0 P# [
Q 1-3. * D- n3 r6 h* Y) Q
4. WHAT can conclude from the results? (Assume for the time being, that you can take the
0 f0 w$ ~6 [: G7 [7 \: O& ~% f. Eresults at face value – in other words, assume they did both the experiments and 0 T; G7 z) v& Z
calculations correctly. Whether or not they really “did it right” is Q5.).
' |0 M2 `- B) |A. Do the results support the stated conclusion or interpretation of the authors?
9 s9 H" S; \! t D8 P7 o8 yB. Do the results prove the stated conclusion, i.e., do they rule out any of the stated or 9 |8 v: P; i* g
unstated alternatives? To check this point considers what the figures and tables would
' I+ T3 F) z' E9 Ilook like if an alternative interpretation were correct. Could you really tell the difference?
% L( n# r! U1 D9 J ]8 u' U3 n9 I, L+ q- T
5. (WHETHER) Did they do everything correctly? % Z7 H' |7 d) k( e
A. Could anything be wrong with their experimental methods?
) S+ G% Y% J4 |/ _& wB. Could anything be wrong with their theoretical methods?
, ]( D& @6 Q- ?(Did they use the right formulas, make reasonable assumptions, etc.?) 7 M$ b, V% w1 k9 g3 R2 e: s
# \: }) D* [+ J: M2 ]
|
|