Working as a researcher is a job that requires a lot of adaptability. This is understandable given that the core of the scientific method could be loosely described as “I recon this might happen but Read more…
Today whilst reading twitter I read an advert by a newly graduated PhD student offering tutorship to current PhD students. Their advert was based on that they had finished their PhD early, had written a Read more…
Throughout my career in science AI and automation have been things that were ever-improving tools in helping do science quicker and in bulk. AI and machine learning have slowly been improving the rate of data Read more…
1 Comment
Joaquin Barroso · 13 November 2015 at 18:16
LOL good one!
The whole idea around the seriousness -and sometimes perhaps even sanctity- of a research article makes great fodder for comedy in an ever more cynical world. I enjoyed this post of yours as well as those about how to write a paper, but what is your take on how to -seriously- read a research paper? This is a topic I’m very much interested in since I believe papers aren’t novels that are supposed to always be read from top to bottom. What is your technique? Mine, for a topic I’m familiar with and/or on which I’m working, is: abstract -> results -> conclusions. If I want to reproduce or adapt a technique or method I will take it all the way to the methods section, while the introduction I only read it diagonally since I’m already sold on the premise. The amount of information available nowadays makes it really hard to go deep into every paper while staying on top of all the relevant literature. So throughout blogs I’m conducting a sort of informal survey on the research-paper-reading habits of other researchers interested in scientific literacy.
Read you next Wednesday!