Reading a Scientific Paper

Honors Biology 181 at
The University of Arizona

Reading a Scientific Paper

Problems in Reading Scientific Papers

Compound Nouns (often multi-word, multi-syllabic)

You can learn to unpackage these: figure out what you KNOW, don't worry about what you don't know.
Example: You don't need to know right away why the cells are called C7-10 (you may never need to know that they are mosquito cells, with some characteristics similar to mammalian white blood cells).

Abbreviations and Strange Names

Keep track of those that you need (but knowing what you need will only come from experience)
Substitute simpler names when feasible

Tense (does not reflect Now and Past in the normal way)

Description of work that has been published already is given in the present tense; work currently reported in this paper is written in past tense. That's intuitively obvious, isn't it?
Here's the rationale:

Work already published has withstood examination. It is accepted as fact and hence is stated as fact. Water boils at 100 C. Of course, there are errors in the literature, but these are still regarded as facts. This convention can make some discussions really problematic to read unless you know the convention. For example: People describe recent experiments in past tense but in so doing sometimes challenge claims they describe in present tense.
Work currently reported has not yet made it to be fully accepted. Results are reported as having occurred: "We identified inducible activities."

Parts to a Scientific Paper

Title/Authors/Affiliations

Example: Secretion of an inducible cecropin-like activity by cultured mosquito cells

Abstract

should give you very concisely:
why they did the research;
what they did (which techniques);
what they found
if I'm reading a paper closely, I make a list of what they say they've done something like this:
They will show:
1. treating mosquito cells in vitro with bacteria causes cells to make different proteins than if no bacteria are added (2D PAGE of proteins labeled with radioactive methionine)
2. several mRNAs increase in abundance following bacteria-treatment (labeling with radioactive nucleotides, run RNA on gels, auto-radiograph dried gels)
3. either gram-negative or gram-positive bacteria cause these changes

Introduction

If good, will give an outsider a glimpse of why this research is important; if poor, will give a bunch of citations that may or may not help you figure out why it is important. If the author hasn't helped you, don't assume he/she will have been thoughtful enough to lead you to readable papers. You may be stuck until you talk with others in your group and then to your mentor.

Materials & Methods

gives more detail than you want. Remember one aim of a paper is to make it possible for someone to replicate their work. You just have to understand their work.
First time reading through, note the techniques used (immunofluorescent microscopy; knock-out mice; immunoblotting; nucleic acid hybridization; DNA sequence analysis) and ignore the details of which buffers were used, how long the incubations went, etc., etc.
Notice how the methods are arranged: you'll probably want to later have the methods section handy when you are looking at the results.

Results

These will (or should) pair well with the methods; skim through first. Later, pair the parts of the methods with the relevant parts of the results. Often this is a better method of organizing for interpreting the data and presenting in the website than to put the methods in one part and the results in another.
First time through notice how the results are presented: graphs; photographs; tables and what type of data is included (photographs of proteins, DNA, or RNA separated on polyacrylamide gels; photographs of cells in culture, average lengths of cells, etc.)

Discussion/Conclusion

This SHOULD follow from the Results (but it doesn't always; be prepared to exercise your own judgement!)
It should address any apparent discrepancies either within the paper's results or comparing this paper with other papers
It should put the results into a context of other published work.

More Resources

Willott has another page with more Tips on Reading a Research Paper (more suitable for reading papers that are connected with lab research, which some of you already do or will start soon, we hope).

Other Sources

Victoria E McMillan, Writing Papers in the Biological Sciences. 2nd edition. Bedford Books, Boston, 1997.

Robert A Day, How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper. 4th edition. Oryx Press, 1994

Michael J. Katz, Elements of the Scientific Paper: A step-by-step guide for students and professionals. Yale University Press, New Haven. 1985.

Honors Biology 181 atThe University of Arizona