Imagine you’re on your computer with a web browser open and are trying to look something up.
That is probably not much of a stretch considering you are likely reading this on some kind of computer or device within a web browser.
Now, let’s say what you are looking up leads you to a complex scientific study. You know, the ones with all the crazy technical jargon.
This will likely result in you opening up approximately 15-20 tabs to search the definitions of all of the different terms.
Talk about overwhelming and time consuming. I can see why someone would become discouraged before even getting to the point where they can understand the study.
That said, learning how to read complex scientific studies is a powerful tool and will go a long way towards helping you become your own health advocate.
Read on to find out how we can help you to push through.
How can reading scientific papers drive my health decisions?
Just look at how much scientific information that has been thrown at us the last three years.
To say that it is overwhelming is putting it lightly.
While intimidating and time consuming to read, scientific papers and other literature are a terrific source of information.
We are most empowered to be our own health advocates when we have the knowledge to back up our decisions.
However, understanding these resources is not about having an advanced degree or years of experience.
It’s about how you approach and break them down into something more digestible.
What’s the best way to eat a big bowl of pasta with marinara sauce and meatballs?
Take small bites!
If I try to eat it all at once or too fast then I might get sick.
Same goes for reading scientific articles.
If I don’t know where to start and can’t break it down into something more manageable then I might become frustrated and walk away.
And I want you to be able to determine for yourself whether the findings in a given paper are valid and relevant to what you are researching.
My goal is to help you succeed.
So, I have put together 5 tips to get you started with reading scientific papers.
Let’s dig in!
Tip #1: Get organized
Start by printing out the article. Next, grab a pen or pencil, a highlighter and even a notebook.
I really like to mark up papers to note things that are important or perhaps terminology/concepts that I want to research further.
Accordingly, I would strongly recommend building this into your routine.
Taking the time to get yourself organized will absolutely help to prevent overwhelm later on.
You will be well equipped handle anything that is confusing and technical.
Tip #2: Orient yourself
There are multiple different types of scientific articles. Some examples are research papers, review articles, commentaries, and reports just to name a few.
I start by determining which type of article I am reading.
Next, most research papers will be broken down into the following sections: abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion.
I will dig deeper into the different types of articles as well as more about the individual sections in another article.
For now, I just want you to be familiar with this before proceeding.
Pay attention to whether all of those sections are present in the main article and the order in which they appear.
Sometimes elements of the methods and results are included in a supplementary section.
It is important to know where to find information that will be needed to ascertain the validity of any findings.
Tip #3: Always start with the abstract
Start with the abstract to see if the paper is worth your time invested into reading and understanding it.
What I mean by this is that scientific papers require an investment of time, sometimes significant.
If I can decide upfront whether a given paper is really what I am looking for then that will save a lot of time. The abstract is the key to getting this information.
An abstract is essentially a miniature version of the paper. It should contain a brief summary of each of the sections.
The authors will or should be making the case in this section as to the relevance of the paper.
Why did they embark on this line of enquiry and the resulting experiments? Additionally, why is this important for the reader and what are the potential downstream applications?
You will know what the paper is about by reading the abstract.
Additionally, I would suggest highlighting the main findings before moving on.
You are going to want to make sure that they do in fact present sufficient evidence to back them up.
Next, in order to start making sense of the evidence let’s move on to the understanding experiments they conducted and the methods used.
Tip #4: Look at what they did
Now I want look at how the experiments were designed and executed.
That information is found in the Methods section, sometimes called Materials and Methods and should contain a detailed description of each experiment.
So, I always want to be sure that the methods are appropriate and use best practices.
To fully understand what I mean by that would take at least another article, if not a whole course but for now I just want to provide enough to get you started.
Therefore, it is important to read through this section carefully to familiarize yourself with the different experiments that were performed.
I like to know how the data that is presented in the results section was generated.
Additionally, try to note which experiment(s) you think are important and back up the main findings.
Tip #5: Determine whether the data backs up the findings
Undoubtedly, the goal is for you to take something away from this paper and try to apply it to your life.
In order to do that you need to determine whether the data reported in the results section backs up the findings.
So, this is why it is important to note what the main findings are and to understand what experiments were performed to generate the data.
I pay close attention to the results and discussions sections for any conclusions that the authors are drawing from the data. Then I look to see how that relates back to the main findings or claims being made.
You may not get it right the first time. The key when starting is to familiarize yourself with the parts of a paper and where to find certain information, as well as getting used to all the technical jargon.
It may seem overwhelming at first but, if you start with these tips and stick with it you will be able to read any scientific paper in no time.
Just don’t try to eat the whole bowl of spaghetti in one bite and you should be good!
Keep an eye out for future articles where I will continue to break down and dig deeper into the concepts presented here.
Taking Action
One of the most important aspects of Science Defined is building a community so that we can learn from and help each other. Fostering open discussion is an integral aspect of that.
Each blog post will end with an inspiring prompt to get you started. Submit a comment below to join the conversation.
Today’s prompt(s):
- Have you ever tried reading a scientific article?
- If so, how did it go?
- If not, what’s holding you up?
- What do you see as the biggest barrier to gaining information from a scientific article?
If you find the information in these articles valuable, we would be grateful for your help in sharing it with those that could most benefit. You can use the share buttons at the beginning or end of the article.
Lastly, to be notified as soon as a new article is posted go ahead and sign up for our newsletter. Just click on the button below the article.
Thank you for your time and effort sharing this with us. I realize not all will be interested but I am!
Thanks for your comment, Kathy. Appreciate it and glad you find it valuable.
Best,
md
Abstract and conclusions are what I scan to pick up the just of things. Stats are an area I need to get better at digesting. Not everything called published science is good quality research. And it takes work to really be able to evaluate a paper.
Thanks for putting in the work, Mike. It’s appreciated.
Thanks for your comment, Maisha and for sharing your approach. Stats are a considerable challenge and definitely something we are going to be looking at with Science Defined. Discerning credibility of the source as well as the validity of the data/claims therein are crucial. Not easy, but very doable.
Best,
md
Thank you for doing this! I love having internet access to so many studies on health and other science topics. I admit to being a junky and get lost in abstract after abstract, but when I try to read more to understand how they got to those conclusions I just don’t get it.
Thanks for your comment, Polly! Really appreciate it. I tend to abstract browse myself usually because I don’t want to invest the time in the whole paper until I know it’s relevant to what I’m researching.
Best,
md
Thank you. This is my kind of service piece.
I have read a number of scientific papers. Among the first were papers by the great and prescient Thomas Szasz. He by the way predicted decades ago the sordid epoch in which we’re we’re currently immersed. I have also encountered, and aborted the reading of many, i.e., those that contained little to no science or logic at all.
By the way, it’s been my experience that marinara sauce was served with sea life (or without) but not with meat.
Keep up the good work.
Thanks for your comment, Gerard. Glad you found it valuable.
Best,
md
I agree with others here that the statistics section is a challenge to understand. What are the methods used and how significant are the results?
Another challenge is finding research papers. Sometimes you can find an entire paper other times you have to purchase a subscription to read anything more than the abstract.
Thanks for your comment, Mark. I agree with you. Those are considerable challenges that even I face. We at Science Defined are aiming to help answer those questions and provide meaningful solutions.
Best,
md
Hello Mike – I just listened to your interview with Brian Hooker, which led me to your website. You, and those like you in the scientific community who possess the courage to put your neck on the line for what is right, you are the handful of people in the world that our health and well-being depends upon. I have immense gratitude for all of you.
As for reading scientific studies, I sometimes wonder if it is worth the time and effort, considering how much fraudulent research is out there. From what I’ve read, it seems to me that most industry sponsored studies are designed in a way that increases the likelihood of obtaining the desired results.
Consider some of these comments (below) from others in the scientific community. Would love to hear your thoughts on this.
The Trouble With ‘Scientific’ Research Today: A Lot That’s Published Is Junk
http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2014/01/08/the-trouble-with-scientific-research-today-a-lot-thats-published-is-junk/#6bd5776720b8
“After a series of failed attempts to extend basic research findings (from academic labs), two large drug companies, Bayer and Amgen, carefully reviewed their own experience and found that only 25 and 11 percent, respectively, of the claims in the scientific literature could be replicated in a way that was sufficiently robust to be useful as the basis for drug development projects. Astonishingly, even when they asked the original researchers to replicate their own work, for the most part they could not. This may explain why scientists’ ability to translate cancer research in the laboratory to clinical success has been shockingly poor.”
The 7 biggest problems facing science, according to 270 scientists.
by Julia Belluz, Brad Plumer, and Brian Resnick on September 7, 2016
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/14/12016710/science-challeges-research-funding-peer-review-process
“Already, much of nutrition science, for instance, is funded by the food industry — an inherent conflict of interest. And the vast majority of drug clinical trials are funded by drugmakers. Studies have found that private industry–funded research tends to yield conclusions that are more favorable to the sponsors.”
Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), makes her view of the subject quite plain:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine”
“Far too often, there are less than 10 people on this planet who can fully comprehend a single scientist’s research.”
—Michael Burel, PhD student, stem cell biology, New York University School of Medicine
Statistics can be fudged, numbers can be tweaked to the benefit of the writer. We can conclude a positive or negative correlation to prove the point we want to make. We have P values to show the sensitivity and strength of our predictive vaslues. We can compare one drug to a placebo, one drug to another. All we have to do is to show a slight benefit to continue to propagate the myth and that science is the gospel. On the other hand a therapeutic modality is not beneficial if the N Numbers in the study are low, if the P value is high, if there are no peer-review articles, regardless of the data presented. Anecdotal beneficial results for a therapeutic modality are frowned upon.
Outstanding!!!
Hi, Kathy. Thank you for bringing this up.
I have struggled with skepticism as I read published scientific papers and studies because of the potential for the bias that can be introduced.
I work for a publicly funded research entity and have been impressed and amazed by the outcomes yet, even here, I can see where there is the potential for stakeholder influences.
I presume that peer review is intended to flesh out influences among all of its other purposes, but I hope to learn more about that here. I am certainly a novice (though a former engineer).
Scott, I’m not a scientist nor am I in the healthcare industry. However, when a topic captures my interest, I tend to do a deep dive.
I’ve read a great many articles from industry insiders regarding the underbelly of scientific research. The truth behind . . . how research is conducted, the peer review process, and the motivations driving researchers and decision makers . . . should alarm all of us. But few of us are inclined to spend time learning about these things. We want to (and need to) believe that, at the very least, the scientists that conduct research for pharmaceutical companies approach their work with the utmost integrity. Afterall, if we can’t trust the scientists, who can we trust?
Coming from the corporate world where I spent my time consulting with hi-tech CEO’s and executives at all levels, I’m well aware of how greed and personal self-interest drives management decisions. I’ve come to the conclusion that the healthcare industry is no different. Profits/personal self-interest comes first, our health comes second. Sometimes a distant second. Just consider the multi-billions that pharmaceutical companies have paid out in class action lawsuits.
The scientific community is not immune to self-serving motivations. When one’s career/salary depends upon producing a study with the desired outcomes, there is much that one can do to influence the results. Similarly, self-interest impacts the peer review process. For instance, mutual back-scratching is not uncommon. You validate my research and I’ll validate yours. Happens all the time in the publishing industry. You give me a good book review and I’ll give you one in return.
It’s my hope that more and more people from within the scientific community endeavor to expose the truth behind much of the scientific research that takes place. And that the mass media actually reports on it!
I have tried reading a scientific article, but it was hard to understand. I think the biggest barrier to me gaining information from a scientific article is finding the time. I’m a single mom, my housing is insecure, and I’m behind on paying bills. I really don’t have the time to learn a new language.
Thanks Mike!
As a non-scientist, who enjoys reading and researching for the purposes of supporting bio-individual health decisions, I also found this article helpful in understanding scientific research. Conclusions in science are not 100% certain; the degree of certainty can be evaluated using the heirarchy of evidence outlined in this article. Some evidence carries more weight than others. While systematic reviews and meta-analysis represent the highest evidence level, they do have limitations. For example, if the analysis includes poorly designed studies, it may make the conclusions unreliable.
So many great replies above!!
https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/01/12/the-hierarchy-of-evidence-is-the-studys-design-robust/
[…] our last article, we gave you 5 practical steps to get you started with reading scientific […]
Thank you, Mike, for this wonderful presentation of how to read scientific papers. I teach several courses in which the content can allow for integration of the examination of research articles. I’ve had growing concerns even before 2020 of the politicization of the peer review process, and within the last 4 years, a complete abandonment of truth and integrity in some of our most prestigious medical journals.
In one course, I have numerous opportunities to discuss these issues and students must prepare for the discussions reading excellent articles which highlight the maleficence identified in research. Of these is by Dr. John Ioannidis, the remarkable biostatistician from Stanford University. Ioannidis (2005) discusses the problems in published research in an older, but nonetheless, invaluable and relevant article, “Why most published research findings are false.” More recently he joined other researchers to write: “Most healthcare interventions tested in Cochrane Reviews are not effective according to high quality evidence: A systematic review and meta-analysis.” Both worth reading and saving for future discussions.
Additionally, Yavchitz et al. (2012) extends concerns with randomized control trials and the “spin” that follows in the media, which when heard by novices or ordinary people, lead to easy acceptance and belief because they lack the skills to decipher the “spin”.
Finally, I want to also highlight an excellent substack written by Dr. Simon Goddek (https://www.drgoddek.com/p/how-scientific-fraud-took-the-world)who exposes the peculiar peer-review procedure of Christian Drosten’s scientific publication about the Covid PCR test and the fraudulent manipulation of this paper. To quote Dr. Simon, “The Drosten paper was officially submitted on 21/01/2020, accepted on 22/01/2020, and published on 23/01/2020. This means that, given the timestamp of the WHO paper, there is only a 3.5h theoretical time window that the paper could have been submitted on 21/01/2020.” He adds that anyone can download the first version of the paper published on the Eurosurveillance server via the Wayback Machine.
I do not know why I have been led down the road I am on the four and more years other than God is allowing me and providing me with the people and tools to do so. I am deeply grateful to those who bravely and undauntedly endure the persecution, you being one, and honored to learn from you as well.
Thank you, and blessings to you!
Eleanor Hall, PhD, RN
Ioannidis J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS medicine, 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Howick, J., Koletsi, D., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Madigan, C., Pandis, N., Loef, M., Walach, H., Sauer, S., Kleijnen, J., Seehra, J., Johnson, T., & Schmidt, S. (2022). Most healthcare interventions tested in Cochrane Reviews are not effective according to high quality evidence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 148, 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.04.017
Yavchitz, A., Boutron, I., Bafeta, A., Marroun, I., Charles, P., Mantz, J., & Ravaud, P. (2012). Misrepresentation of randomized controlled trials in press releases and news coverage: a cohort study. PLoS medicine, 9(9), e1001308. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001308
Interesting prompts…
Have you ever tried reading a scientific article?
Yes. I’ve read thousands of peer-reviewed papers.
If so, how did it go?
Well, let’s just say that, although I’m not fully convinced by his methods, the conclusion of Ioannidis (2005) ring true—”most current published research findings are false.” As a statistician and ecologist, most of the papers I read involve statistics and very frequently the papers suffer from serious statistical errors.
What do you see as the biggest barrier to gaining information from a scientific article?
1.The most serious and common problems are with sampling and scope of inference. Technique and modeling errors are common too, but they tend to be both less consequential and more difficult to assess the significance of.
When the sample is bad or the scope of inference is unjustified, the conclusions are garbage. Even if they happen to be true, the paper cannot support them, so they cannot be taken as “information.”
2. Errors in simple logic, especially
affirming the consequent
—“This explanation is consonant with the data. Therefore, it it true.”
argumentum ad verecundiam
—-“Prof. Smart and Dr. Establishment said it’s true. Therefore, it’s true.
argumentum ad ignorantium
—“You can’t prove me wrong. Therefore I’m right.”
—confusing absence of evidence with evidence of absence
—concluding that failure to reject H0 is the same as accepting or proving H03.
3. Conclusions stated with gross overconfidence. Epistemic humility is a cardinal virtue in science.