It is now time to get into the meat and potatoes of reading a scientific paper.
Up to now, you have seen how to quickly start approaching a scientific paper and what types of papers there are.
To not only ensure that a given paper is relevant to your goals but, to properly evaluate it you need to know about the different parts that make up a scientific paper.
And that’s where we are going next.
But, first, let’s review where we came from.
After all, if you don’t know where you’ve been, how can you see where you are going?
We started with a walkthrough of 5 key steps to practically approach any scientific paper.
The goal there was to start to demystify and calm the overwhelm that comes with reading a scientific paper.
They tend to be just a tad intimidating, even for some of the most seasoned scientists.
Next, we covered the different types of scientific papers.
This is key because once you know this it will help to sharpen and direct your searches, saving you a ton of time in the process.
Alright, let’s now take the next step and dive into the parts of a scientific paper.
What are the parts of a scientific paper?
We will start by simply going through what the different parts of a scientific paper are and then we can briefly go through each one.
For most standard scientific papers there are usually five (5) sections.
They are the following:
- Abstract
- Introduction
- Methods
- Results
- Discussion
In each subsequent section of this article, we will start to break down each of the parts of a scientific paper listed above.
We will discuss what each one includes and the best approach.
In other words, you’re going to want to keep reading.
Abstract
Essentially, an abstract is a mini version or summary of a paper. It should cover the important points.
If done properly, it is a sort of advertisement for the paper.
A good abstract will answer the following questions:
- What was done?
- Why was it done?
- How was it done?
- What was found?
Usually, the abstract will end with a statement indicating the importance of the results.
When I am doing a search and looking for papers relevant to my topic of interest I always start by scanning the abstracts.
This is because doing so allows readers to find out the important points without having to read the rest of the paper.
You should be able to understand what the authors did and why without reading through the text of the rest of the article.
And I would strongly suggest that you use this section to determine whether or not you want to wade through the rest of a given paper or not.
Reading the full paper will require an investment in your time, that goes without saying.
If you can determine upfront that you don’t need to spend that time on a given paper and can just move on to the next one that is a big win.
Therefore, reading and understanding the abstract can save you a ton of time, something we all can relate to and have little to spare.
One thing you won’t find in an abstract is background information. You will see that in the Introduction, which we will cover next.
Introduction
The next part of the paper that you will encounter is the Introduction.
This section should provide the background to the paper.
Theoretically, it should do so sufficiently that the reader doesn’t have to go digging further.
If you are to successfully synthesize the paper and evaluate the findings it is very important that you understand what is in the introduction.
You see, the introduction lays the groundwork by informing the reader why they are reading the paper.
Oftentimes, it will expose a gap in knowledge within a certain area of research.
Within that will be questions and/or perhaps an explicit hypothesis that the authors will look to test.
The rest of the paper will describe the testing process, what the results are, and finally the author’s interpretation of the results.
Ultimately, it is up to the reader to evaluate the presented information and determine its validity.
This is critical if you are to be able to take anything away from the paper and apply it to your situation.
The author(s) should be clear about what they are asking and why.
It is then up to the reader to determine whether this is reasonable.
Remember, it is crucial for the reader to understand and evaluate the new work presented in the paper.
The introduction should clearly communicate a few important goals.
They are:
- What is the nature and scope of the problem?
- What is the pertinent literature that is already out on the subject?
- What methods are the authors employing for their investigation?
- What are the authors’ hypothesized results?
The paper must address all of the questions raised in the introduction.
And, note that you will likely encounter a lot of citations.
Use and evaluate them to determine whether the new work presented is in support of or refutes any prior work.
Now that we know why the authors are setting out to do this work, we can move on to evaluate what they did.
You will find that within the methods.
Methods
The Methods section, also known as ‘Materials and Methods’, outlines the procedures used to generate the data.
It is hard to overstate the next point so, I hope that I am being obvious.
The goal of the methods section is to make your work reproducible such that any other scientist or lab can at the very least attempt to replicate or reproduce it.
This is largely the goal of publishing scientific research, or at least it used to be.
By publishing the new work in a public forum, other scientists can challenge and either confirm or verify it.
Replicating the experiment or study is the most effective approach to validate the results and conclusions.
Many have stated that replication is the very cornerstone of science.
So, I hope you can see why the methods are crucial to being able to attempt that.
If we lack clarity on the process used, repeating it becomes nearly impossible in a different setting.
Therefore, the methods should be sufficiently detailed such that another scientist can repeat the experiments.
A good comparison would be to a recipe in a cookbook.
As well, it is important to not only document the tasks completed but also the materials used.
There should be a description of the data collection process and any statistical analysis used.
If done properly, a reader should be able to use the methods to determine whether they are scientifically valid.
This is critical to interpreting the results and ultimately evaluating the findings.
Results
Now we come to the heart of the paper, the Results section.
This is where the rubber meets the road.
These are the data and results derived from the methods outlined in the previous section.
An important point is that this presentation of data should be objective.
There should not be any interpretation from the authors as well as no bias or commentary.
They must save that for the Discussion.
So, sticking to the facts here is critical.
You should also know that most data presented in this section is representative.
In other words, it could be an average of data from multiple experiments or perhaps the best experiment out of x number.
There will also be tables and figures presented here.
Any descriptions of these tables and figures should be sufficient such that you can understand what is in them without actually seeing them.
You get bonus points here for clarity.
A major goal of the results section is to lay the foundation for the discussion.
As well, it is also important to describe the biological relevance of data without solely relying on statistical analysis.
The bottom line is that in the results sections the authors are providing the reader with the tools necessary to objectively evaluate the findings.
Once you are familiar with this section it’s time to move on to the Discussion.
Discussion
The final part of a research or scientific paper is the Discussion.
Essentially, this should contain the answer to the question first posed in the introduction.
They are essentially making conclusions and testing them against the hypothesis, either rejecting or confirming it.
The bulk of this part of the paper centers around a subjective interpretation of the results by the authors.
They, in effect, are drawing conclusions and trying to see whether they fit into what was hypothesized.
The authors can propose future opportunities for research within this space as well.
Very often the author will review literature and discuss how it relates to their results.
This could help provide the relevance of the results, which is key to you, the reader, being able to take anything away from the study.
There are some important elements usually included within the discussion that seem to be lacking more recently.
Despite the subjective nature of this section, an open and transparent evaluation of the work is key.
This means that one would expect to see a discussion of the limitations of the study as well as whether or not the experiments worked as expected.
The discussion is also a good place to contrast the work presented in the paper with that of others.
A precedent, if found, can only strengthen the findings.
When reporting novel and unique findings, it’s important for the author to acknowledge the need for further validation.
Also, any caveats to the study should be transparent and discussed here too.
The discussion is effectively a self-contained story that ties together the results with the introduction.
You should be able to clearly understand what the take-home message is.
The responsibility now lies on you, the reader, to evaluate whether the presented findings have sufficient support from the results and if the methods used are valid.
More on that in the next section.
Putting it all together
The ultimate goals for reading a scientific paper for you the reader are the following:
- Evaluate the findings to determine their veracity
- Synthesize the information
- Take action and apply the new knowledge to your situation
To properly evaluate research findings and synthesize the information therein, you need to know what the different parts of a scientific paper are and how best to approach them.
That is what we have provided here, but is only the beginning.
You need to have a GPS or compass to give you a clear direction for your research.
How will you know whether you have found what you are looking for otherwise?
So, don’t hesitate to declare exactly what you want to get out of your research.
Start with your goals.
Are you researching a diagnosis? Maybe it’s potential treatment options? Or maybe you want to make some other informed decision about your health?
Whatever it is, get clear on it and state it upfront.
This will be the lens through which you will evaluate your searches and the articles you find therein.
The more targeted your searches, the likelier you will find relevant articles.
It will save you a ton of time too.
So, take a moment now and focus on what it is you want.
Then come back and keep an eye out for the next article in this series where I will be breaking down my process for how to evaluate research findings and synthesize the information.
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):
- What do you think is the most challenging part of a scientific paper?
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.
