Checklist to Guide Active and Critical Reading of Scientific Papers

CHECKLIST TO GUIDE ACTIVE AND CRITICAL READING OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS

Research stage Identify suitablepapers: What information do you need? / 1.
2.
3.
4.
OBJECTIVE PHASE TO GATHER INFORMATION:
Extracting information from the paper / A. Title:
What information is conveyed? List key concepts and questions.
B. General Information:
Where was study conducted
(university, hospital, etc)?
How was the study funded?
C. Abstract:
What are the main findings, or what key information is presented?
Before going on:
Do I have enough information to read the paper?
If “Yes”….go to Introduction, then Results and Discussion
If “No”... decide which concepts / terms do I need to read in a review or textbook?
D. Introduction:
What are the main hypotheses?
What is already known about the topic/problem?
What objectives is the current work trying to achieve?
E. Materials and Methods:
Sample characteristics
Comparable parameters
(Scan only for the specific info you need to answer your questions at the top)
F. Results
What do data and figure/table legends tell you?
G. Discussion
What arguments are the authors using to defend their work?
H. Conclusion
List the conclusions that are actually
supported by the evidence.
CRITICAL THINKING: Capturing YOUR thoughts / I. Title and Abstract
Based on the wording of the title, list the sorts of experiments you anticipate the authors performed, expected data and conclusion.
Is the method/material new, innovative, a modification/replication?
J. Introduction
What questions are the authors claiming to answer?
K. Experimental Design—Materials & Method
Are there particular strengths or weaknesses worth noting?
L. Results
Do the data actually support the authors’ claim? What might be alternate explanations for the results? What data do you think the authors omitted?
M. Your judgment:
Did the authors’ answer their questions you identified in D.? Do the main questions, data and conclusions match? On a scale of 1 to 7 (where 7=excellent), how well do the data actually support the conclusions?
N. Discussion (read after your judgment)
Have the authors been uncritical of their experiment? Have the authors overstated the importance of their findings?
O. Reflecting on the communication:
Is this paper constructed well? How might data presentation and argument be improved?
Your further questions / What should be done next in order to advance this study? What are gaps that need more research? What are the next issues that should be addressed? If you were working in this area, what would you do next?
Thought Triggers / What new thoughts did reading this paper trigger in you?
(e.g. New or modified experimentation, etc.)
What is your position after reading this paper?