Structure of a research article and Skimming skills

Types of scientific literature Research articles Primary Reviews Non-technical articles (eg. Scientific American) Increasing technicality Last week we talked about using non-technical pieces of secondary literature as an introduction or a gateway to understanding the more technical material in a primary research article. You read and summarized some non-technical articles and used various search strategies to accumulate some research articles on the same topic. Then you started to look at the structure and the layout of those research articles. Today, we’re going to start out by talking about the structural features you noticed in these various articles, and what was similar across different journals and disciplines and what was different. Then, keeping those variations in mind, we’re going to look at a generalized structure and what the different elements of a research article contribute to its goal of conveying information about a particular set of experiments. Then we’re going to learn some skills for quickly skimming complicated, technical research articles, and you’re going to practice these skills with a member from your group, so that you’re able to quickly uncover the main point of a research article without having to spend a lot of time understanding all of the details. Starting next week, we’re going to spend time learning how to look at those details. Secondary

Learning goals By the end of class, you should be able to: Define and describe the general structure of a research article. Skim and quickly summarize a research article. Decipher jargon and rephrase in non-technical language.

Group discussion Structural elements Ok, so I want each group to come up to the board, all together, and write out all of the “main structural elements” that you found in the research articles that you looked at with your group last week [they will be instructed to bring a hard-copy of their “Investigating article structure” assignment.] and put a number next to each element, representing the number of times you saw that element in your four articles. [Write four group ‘names’ (T-rex, mantle plume, stem cells, Midcontinent Rift) on board with space for them to add their lists.]

RHUM-RUM: The Biggest Seismological Plume Hunt So Far Discussion (3) T-rex Mantle plume Results RHUM-RUM: The Biggest Seismological Plume Hunt So Far Discussion (3) Conclusion Scientific Targets Materials and Methods A Forthcoming Rich Data Set Introduction (2) Systematic Paleontology (2) Introduction Description (and comparisons) (2) Data and Methods Etymology Holotype Discussion Paratypes Horizon and locality Diagnosis Rift Morphological Variations Abstract Stem cells Seismic Reflection Data Introduction (4) Discussion (2) (Materials and) Methods (4) Database Employed Results (4) Pre-Keweenawan geologic setting Discussion (4) The Midcontinent Rift in Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma Conclusions (2) Evidence for Keweenawan age mafic intrusions in west Texas and eastern New Mexico Abstract (3) Conclusions Their lists should look something like this. So we notice that there is some variation, not only between different papers on the same topic, but also a lot of variation across subjects. For medical papers, and really, for biology papers in general, it looks like the sections are very standardized to what we’re going to call the “general structure” of a research article, with an abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion and conclusions. And we’re going to talk about each of those in detail, but for now I want to draw your attention to the fact that, quite clearly, not all research articles conform to this general model. Papers in paleontology appear to often have sections missing in the general model, like “systematic paleontology” and “description”, that fit the needs of that particular discipline. So just because something is missing one of these sections, or has something else that we don’t include as part of the general structure of a research article, doesn’t make it not a piece of primary literature. You’re going to need to be able to adjust your reading strategy to take these variations into account.

General structure Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusions

General structure Abstract – a concise description of the research project, including results. Often has subheadings. Often not labeled. Very dense and full of jargon.

General structure Introduction – background information that is necessary for understanding the research problem and results. Less technical than the abstract. Key vocabulary terms are defined here. Good place to start!

General structure Methods – details about how the experiments were performed. Very technical. Important to read if you are: Doing an experiment that depends on previous results Trying to judge the validity of the results Don’t worry about these for now.

General structure Results – A description of the data that were collected. Traditionally does not include interpretation. Sometimes combined with Discussion.

General structure Discussion – An interpretation of the results. Remember that these are the author’s interpretation of the data. If the results are important to you, need to look at the Results or even the raw data. Good place to go to understand the author’s answer to the research question.

General structure Conclusions – brief description of the major results of the study. Often includes proposed future research. Not as thorough as Discussion.

General structure Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusions

Questions?

Demo: Too many papers! We now have a general idea of what the pieces of a research article are and what each of those pieces is there for.

Skimming strategy Primary Secondary Abstract (depends on technicality) Introduction Discussion/Conclusions Secondary Section headings Figure captions

Demo: Skimming. Summarize each section. Circle jargon terms.

Dealing with Jargon (paired-practice) Directions in handout.

Skimming and Summarizing (paired-practice) Directions in handout.

Questions?

Homework Read the article “How to Read a Scientific Paper” (http://www.biochem.arizona.edu/classes/bioc568/papers.htm). Read the paper Wolfe-Simon F, et al. (2011) Science 332: 1163–1166. Answer the questions under the section “Evaluating a paper” (a-c and f) and submit your answers as Assignment 4 on SmartSite. Each answer should be 1-3 sentences. Read and be prepared to discuss the discussion questions for this article (posted on SmartSite).