Do you randomly read scientific papers?

[Magni]

I often go down Wikipedia rabbit holes, and from the citations there end up going down scientific paper rabbit holes. Depending on the subject matter, I won't necessarily understand everything in the paper, but that's just an easy way of making the hole go deeper.

For example, here's the latest paper I read:
Effect of different mating stimuli on induction of ovulation in the alpaca (from 1970).

I now know orders of magnitude more about alpacas than I did an hour ago. For example, this gem:

Even though copulation takes a relatively long time in the alpaca (range: 10 to 50 min in our observations), there appears to be no correlation between copulation time and induction of ovulation. Females in which service was interrupted about 5 min after its initiation showed a similar incidence of ovulation to those that received one or three uninterrupted services. The fact that four of the six ova retrieved from the interrupted-service females were dividing indicates that ejaculation occurred in spite of the short copulation time. If such is the case, one wonders what may be the physiological advantages of the long copulation times characteristic of this species.

Click to shrink...

tmyk.gif

So many questions. How do you interrupt copulation between alpacas? Did the males ejaculate as soon as they realized they were being forced to stop? Anyways, it always amazes me that some people's lives are spent studying things like this. One good thing about there being billions of people is that we can parallelize research into so many different arcane fields, such as alpaca ovulation induction.

So Era, what's some random knowledge you've learned from obscure papers? Any fun reads to share?

 

[Catshade]

Nope. Only when I'm arguing with strangers on the internet.

 

[SupremeWu]

I randomly save science papers as if I'll read them some day but I never do, I just like to pretend.

 

[Azraes]

I read the synopsis and briefs. The entire paper has to be that interesting for me to read it. Hopefully they have charts, graphs for key data because I don't have time for data that's not presented well - when it's work related.

 

[sph3re]

Nope. Only when I'm arguing with strangers on the internet.

Click to shrink...

This is too real

 

[Deleted member 8166]

Almost every day. I usually read a synopsis and if I find that interesting I dive in deeper.

 

[Magni]

Sesuadra Oh wow, I'm nowhere near that level. I'd like to get into that routine though. How do you find/pick papers?

Nope. Only when I'm arguing with strangers on the internet.

Click to shrink...

You mean you don't argue with strangers on the internet for fun?

 

[Heromanz]

No shit is boring as fuck

 

[FlowersisBritish]

Not randomly. The topic will either come up in conversation or something else I'm reading and I go "fuck it, I've got a few hours" and do some light research. But never randomly.

 

[iRAWRasaurus]

I would look at the figures, draw my own conclusions, then read the article.

 

[molnizzle]

No. Never. I wouldn't even read one for school.

Give me the tl;dr and I'm good.

 

[Magni]

Not randomly. The topic will either come up in conversation or something else I'm reading and I go "fuck it, I've got a few hours" and do some light research. But never randomly.

Click to shrink...

Ah yes, that's more like what I'll do. For the most part, I'll be (semi-) randomly thinking about something, and from there end up reading a paper. On occasion I'll click on "Random article" in Wikipedia until I find something interesting, but offhand I can't remember any paper I've read from that flow.

 

[gforguava]

Not scientific ones but I semi-frequently read academic papers and books, usually about stuff that interests me(gothic fiction, queer theory, cinema).

I recently read someone's thesis called "Draining life forces: Vampirism in Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights" which clued me onto the whole "Wuthering Heights has literal and not just metaphorical vampires in it" read of the story.

 

[Arebours]

several each week, but mostly papers related to what I do(cs stuff). sometimes I read stuff outside of my field for the fun of it if it's a good and accessible paper.

 

[sven]

Nope. Never read one.

 

[Starwing]

Sometimes. It depends on what I'm reading about or curious about. Usually its on ongoing research the social sciences, chemistry or physics.

 

[Deleted member 2761]

It's too much work to ever do randomly.

 

[Archaic]

I read enough academic papers as part of my job. I might occasionally read something outside of my discipline for fun if it's recommended to me (speaking of which, go read Body Ritual among the Nacirema - free to read online through JSTOR - if you haven't already), but I might only do that a couple of times a year.

 

[Felt]

I read papers for my job so I read fiction for fun

 

[Ogre]

I'll go over probably 10 a week?

Some studies take a lot of time to break down though, so I appreciate sites that do that ground work - especially on the stats side.

Edit: this is just work related-stuff.

 

[SirNinja]

Not randomly, no. I have proofread several for work, though.

 

[Reversed]

Not randomly atm but might attempt to if I understand the area? (what's fun on drilling your head on knowing whether a theorem holds anyway?)

 

[Necromanti]

Only for work.

 

[MrNewVegas]

Nope. Only when I'm arguing with strangers on the internet.

Click to shrink...

The best first post lol

 

[Dankul]

Don't bother unless you're in the field or maybe if the paper is highly regarded. Most scientific papers are wrong, especially in fields such as psychology, medicine, nutrition, etc.

 

[SteveWinwood]

no i read them for work why would I do it for fun

No. Never. I wouldn't even read one for school.

Give me the tl;dr and I'm good.

Click to shrink...

luckily they usually have a tldr

Don't bother unless you're in the field or maybe if the paper is highly regarded. Most scientific papers are wrong, especially in fields such as psychology, medicine, nutrition, etc.

Click to shrink...

im not sure what you're saying when you say theyre wrong, they're just reporting their data

are you saying theyre lying in their papers? because that's a serious accusation

it's more likely the layman can't interpret what they're saying effectively, specifically how important or widespread the result could be

 

[Masoyama]

Yeah. But I'm also a scientist with a PhD so what starts as fun can lead to new ideas.

 

[Deleted member 41980]

It depends on the subject, but for physics I think it would be more productive to study a textbook than to read publications.

 

[Dyle]

Of course not, the information is either impenetrable or worthless to a layman. Unless you have enough experience in the field you're just wasting your time taking in information that you can't possibly understand.

 

[John Dunbar]

i don't do anything for "fun". i haven't genuinely enjoyed myself in years.

 

[Future Gazer]

no lol

 

[Kizuna]

No way, They are boring as shit. Even for the subjects I've studied in college (political science, sociology) I just read the abstract and the conclusion.

 

[Absurdeity]

at most the abstract and discussion section. everything else is kind of extra unless youre actually writing about the paper or using it as part of your reasoning for your own research
either way reading these papers are never fun

 

[WedgeX]

I read them for work most days. And yeah, when arguing with strangers on the Internet.

It is fun to see the methods employed, models used, and some results.

 

[Codosbuya]

No. Never. I wouldn't even read one for school.

Give me the tl;dr and I'm good.

Click to shrink...

The TL:DR can be found in the Abstract and in the Conclusions.

I am a researcher so reading and writing scientific papers are part of my work so no, I dont randomly read papers, I systematically read them.

 

[ty_hot]

I once read an article about a method to solve the most difficult kind of Sudoku. By hand. No computer, nothing. Paper, pencil.

[1812.06778] Minuet: A method to solve Sudoku puzzles by hand

arxiv.org

 

[Deleted member 6582]

I would if they would learn to write and stop putting them behind paywalls. Nobody in academia gives a shit about knowledge accessibility. I just find it a slog to drag myself through the equations. Luckily in the internet age someone has often summarized it in a much better format.

 

[Bigwombat]

Does reading abstracts and intro and results count?

 

[lampeater]

I do this is part of my job also so I wouldn't say I do it randomly or for fun, even if some of them are pretty interesting/useful to reference. I usually end up landing upon them as referenced by other papers or noted in journal newsletters.
What I'm worried about more and more is that some folks may not be able to judge the quality of the research. I come to that conclusion usually after reading the methods/data analysis and results closely. Some authors really stretch the significance (statistical, clinical, or otherwise) of their results; I don't think most people reading casually would catch how off some of the interpretations are based purely on the abstract and discussion sections. Most people also don't end up spending a couple of hours going through a single paper with a highlighter and taking notes either though.

I would if they would learn to write and stop putting them behind paywalls. Nobody in academia gives a shit about knowledge accessibility. I just find it a slog to drag myself through the equations. Luckily in the internet age someone has often summarized it in a much better format.

Click to shrink...

Plus this. Some papers are just poorly written/edited, and definitely not written for people outside the field to understand. Paywall journals are still a huge and open access journals can sometimes be tough to sort through, quality-wise.

 

[TrailerParkRanger]

Not really. I used to. But I'm just not scientifically literate enough. Last paper I read was a case study, where I was the subject.

 

[Deleted member 38573]

They aren't really written to be read by the average person. They are for other researchers/scientists in that specific field to use/build upon.

I don't read them outside of work.

Literature reviews are better for the layperson.

 

[Bakercat]

I only read psychology studies that I find interesting. I've asked for some copies from users on here because I thought they were interesting. I have a psychology degree btw.

 

[Deleted member 49319]

You don't read actual scientific papers for fun, it's gibberish to average people.

 

[Ultimate Bear Cub]

Sometimes I do. I usually have to break out the dictionary or go off on multiple tangents just to understand a paragraph. I enjoy learning or being exposed to foreign concepts. Then I stop procrastinating from my actual degree work and rush to hand in my assignments.

 

[Arebours]

Of course not, the information is either impenetrable or worthless to a layman. Unless you have enough experience in the field you're just wasting your time taking in information that you can't possibly understand.

Click to shrink...

there are lots of papers, in all sorts of fields, with great ideas that still are very accessible even to laymen.

This homepage has a bunch of papers with annotations to help readers understand the content: https://fermatslibrary.com/journal_club

for example the original bitcoin paper, very readable indeed.

 

[Sordid Plebeian]

More of a law journal guy, but now not so much

 

[Stinkles]

Yes. Some of it is for light work research, some of it from personal passion and enthusiasm. For most of the weightier topics though, my level of comprehension is popular science filtered.

So I'll be reading about Hawking Radiation.

Black Holes don't necessarily destroy information after all - OK
Black Holes aren't permanent and slowly dissipate radiation over time - OK
The process is so slow that the universe will be utterly dark and comprised of degenerate matter by the time the last Black Hole evaporates away - OK

EVEN BASIC MATH

 

[Deleted member 41980]

EVEN BASIC MATH

Click to shrink...

This is the paradox of promoting physics education. We like to hear about cosmology and string theory and quantum mechanics, but we don't like mathematics. I don't mean to call you out - especially since you might be joking - but it's a prevalent mindset and I wish we had better methods. It's tough to make balls rolling down inclines sound exciting when we have exploding stars and colliding particles.

 

[LinkStrikesBack]

I would if they would learn to write and stop putting them behind paywalls. Nobody in academia gives a shit about knowledge accessibility. I just find it a slog to drag myself through the equations. Luckily in the internet age someone has often summarized it in a much better format.

Click to shrink...

A paper is not the typical place I would put work to be accessible to a lay person. These are highly technical documents meant to provide detailed knowledge of a very specific topic and (hopefully) provide a basis for other people's research, which yes, means the format requires a rather high level of competence to follow.

 

[GYODX]

I have IEEE membership, so yeah.

Most technical papers are useless to people without domain knowledge, though.