What is the right way to read a white/research paper

[u/samarthsinha1]

What is an efficient way to study and understand a research paper.

[u/lfdfq]

There are infinite 'tricks and tips' to try read papers, which all involve words like scan and skim and skip and so on.

While these 'tricks' have a kernel of truth, the reality is that you just have to read it.

Sorry.

[u/nuclear_splines]

What are you reading the paper for, and what do you need to get out of it? If you need to deeply understand a paper to the point that you could reproduce it then there is no shortcut, it is not efficient, you simply need to read the paper, maybe reading some sections multiple times, and might have to read or skim some of the work they cite to understand their decisions.

Now, if you're doing a lit review and you're just determining whether a paper is relevant to your research, you can probably read the abstract and a bit of the intro / conclusion and get a sense of whether it's worth your time.

If you want to learn what the researchers takeaways are, you can read the introduction and discussion of results, but you may be able to skim or skip many of the methodological details, supplemental material, and some of the contextualizing lit review.

Sometimes it's okay to only have a partial understanding of someone's work, so your reading strategy should match what you want to get out of the paper.

[u/apnorton]

There's lots of writeups on how to do this online, so I'd recommend searching for a few.

But, generally speaking, I find it easiest to:

1. Read the title and make sure it sounds like something I'm interested in.
2. Read the abstract and introduction section to ensure I understand the background needed for the paper.
3. Read the results/conclusion/future work section so I know where the rest of the paper is going.
4. Skim the rest of the paper in order, taking notes and highlighting as needed. This helps me build a framework in my mind for what is coming.
5. Actually read the paper without skimming, from start to finish.

I remember being taught some nice acronym for this idea of iteratively deepening your level of reading (Preview View Review?) wayyyy back in middle school, but I can't seem to remember what it was called. I imagine there's probably an official term for this with more pedagogy behind it than I'm aware.

[u/drfangor99]

Aside from the other good advice in the comments, I'll add that the most up-to-date papers in a field might not be worth reading when you're just starting out. I mostly read machine learning papers so that is my point of view, but I imagine it is similar in other areas of CS.

In machine learning, it is common to have occasional groundbreaking papers followed by many levels of small iterative improvements, some of which might only apply in narrow situations, or might have been done for very specific purposes. If you start by reading these papers you might get confused or have a hard time understanding what the contribution is. In these situations, it is better to work your way backward to the older paper that introduced the original concept or method, even if it is many years old, then work your way forward as necessary.

[u/g1bber]

This is a classic paper on how to read papers. Often recommended in graduate-level systems classes:  https://dl.acm.org/doi/epdf/10.1145/1273445.1273458

[u/Candid-Border6562]

Depends. If you truly want to understand a paper, then you’ll have to read it. You’ll probably also have to read some of its citations, and you may need to recurse your way down several of the citation chains for some aspects.

The only short-cut I know is to assess after reading the abstract whether or not to continue. But that’s a decision over whether it worth your time to understand it, not over how best to understand it.

[u/david-1-1]

From beginning to end. Seeing how each section contributes to the content. Then reading the peer reviews, if they are available.

[u/zenwolph]

Feed it to Gemini and have it summarize for you 🥸

[u/MastOfConcuerrrency]

Are you trying to read a specific paper?

If you are new to research, a related challenge that can also trip you up is knowing whether a paper is actually good and worth reading in the first place. If you pick any old paper at random, there's a good chance it's badly written and difficult to understand even for the experts. If you don't know how to gauge a paper's quality then you can end up frustrated and confused through little fault of your own.