How am I  Reading Research Paper?



Basically I summarized the approach of the following four. I kept what I liked and I let go what I did not.


  1. Thoughts on Reading Research Papers
  2. How to Read a Scientific Research Paper--
  3. How to Read a Research Paper
  4. How to Read an Engineering Research Paper
This is what I have so far (I am sure this is going to change)

Before reading

How did I come to know of the paper?

Why am I reading the paper?

  1. Looking at similar research work
  2. To understand the theme of a conference or research issues
  3. Gain background information
  4. Details of a concept or technique
  5. Critical reading

Reading the Paper

Iteration 1 is mandatory for all readings

Read introduction, conclusion, abstract (if it is not clear move on) and references. Blog down in my own words one or at most two sentences on the following:

  1. What problem the authors are addressing?
  2. Why the problem is important?
  3. What the authors solution is?
  4. What their solution contributes to the area?
  5. How the authors demonstrate/prove that their solutions works and that it improves on other solutions in some way(s)?
  6. Identify the paper's connection to other papers I have read
  7. How is the work similar to my research agenda?
Also make a list of terms that was not clear to me.
Spend some time getting the meaning of the unfamiliar terms from other sources.

Iteration 2 is mandatory for purpose 3 (background information)


  1. Read the entire paper in sequence with special attention to figures and charts etc.
  2. Write down the summary of the background information that I was seeking. If I am reading it for some other purpose then write down the major points of the paper in a 250 word summary.


Iteration 3 is mandatory for purpose 4 and 5 (details / critics)

Read the paper with a focus on details of the proof/technique that I need detailed understanding.
If it is a critical reading

  1. Did the authors do what they said they were going to do?
  2. Do their results make sense?
  3. Are their methods sound?
  4. What assumptions are they making?