I heard that only reading the abstracts of articles and then using them to make claims is bad. However, I often find that much of the information I read useless for me. For example, often the introduction gives me no useful information because I'm already introduced to the subject or the abstract gives no useful information because I already know the article is what I'm looking for. Much of the information in the methods section also seems unimportant to me as I want to learn about how reliable a study is (such as by looking at sample size of if it's a randomized controlled trial, correlational study, etc), and I'm unconcerned about the specifics of the experiment.
So, what parts of scientific articles should be skipped and when?
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.
What parts of scientific articles should be skipped and when?
in Other Sciences
Posted
I heard that only reading the abstracts of articles and then using them to make claims is bad. However, I often find that much of the information I read useless for me. For example, often the introduction gives me no useful information because I'm already introduced to the subject or the abstract gives no useful information because I already know the article is what I'm looking for. Much of the information in the methods section also seems unimportant to me as I want to learn about how reliable a study is (such as by looking at sample size of if it's a randomized controlled trial, correlational study, etc), and I'm unconcerned about the specifics of the experiment.
So, what parts of scientific articles should be skipped and when?