How should one read a science paper?

Yesterday night, while sitting at my living-room's table, having dinner, a strange thing happened. I read two scientific papers.

This was rather unusual because I cannot quite recall the last time it happened and this is something for which I tend to blame science more than I blame myself.

Still, I read two papers, one by a group of people, whom one of my bosses like to refer to as "competitors" and the other suggested by another of my bosses (I only have two but sometimes I feel they are more). As I was going through the first one, I realized I was facing inherent difficulties in comprehending it. What was really puzzling about it, was that although the title and the brief summary preceding it were describing a clear concept in a quite straightforward manner, the main body of the work was going around the subject in a way that to me appeared rather obscure. I forced myself to go on, putting aside my glass of wine and blaming my recent paper-reading idleness for not being able to grasp simple scientific truths. But the harder I tried, the worse I was getting entangled in its twisted structure. Right when I thought the answer would pop up in the next page I would find myself staring at exotic scientific terms, which I was coming upon for the very first time, funny-sounding acronyms which said nothing to me and all this combined with plots, where I could not make out the real data from the simulated ones.

I reached the end of the paper seriously questioning myself and thinking whether I had become inept for activities of this sort. I gathered all the strength I had left and went on to the second one.

I found myself in front of a similarly clear and straight-forward title, so I thought "not again!" To my relief it was not the case. This one was as clear as its title, the concepts were all well-explained from the start, the necessary "catchy" acronyms had been clarified in the very beginning, the plots were self-explanatory. As I was regaining my self-esteem, my questioning gradually started to direct itself towards the writers instead of the readers. Some papers I thought are good and some bad. And that's that. I took some notes at the margins of both articles, washed the dishes and went to finish my wine on the couch with my book.

To this point I should make clear, that the whole process did not take more than what a normal person needs to finish off a salad, perhaps only a bit more, so I guess we are talking about 20 minutes or so. And I hope you find I am right when I say that one should dedicate no more than 10 minutes to go through a scientific paper. It's not that I am a fast reader but I guess if on average it takes one about 10 days to read "Mrs Dalloway" or "Crime and Punishment", it is imperative that he doesn't devote more than 10 minutes to the average science paper he comes upon. (And in case I realize someone has devoted more than 2 minutes in one of my few papers I will be more than happy). This comparison is not entirely unrelated to the fact that right after fulfilling my nocturnal, scientific duties I found myself on the sofa with an essay by Virginia Woolf entitled "How should one read a book?"

The essay is a good and pleasant read, (I assume especially for those who unlike myself are more than simply familiar with British literature) but it was mostly the main point of it that made me think twice about reading in general, and yes -even- science papers in particular. Woolf's main argument is that when it comes to a book the reader has above all a responsibility. For reading it carefully, for realizing the difficulty of writing in general, for judging it with a sincere kindness and a kind sincerity. Furthermore though, -she concluded- the criticism for which we readers are responsible (and in the case of science, readers coincide with critics although not to an extent that I would dare consider desirable) is mostly to be based on brief impressions, images and thoughts that flow as one reads without having to go into detail. Because this is what really matters.

I am not sure science papers are meant to be read as books. But considering the pleasure I get from reading books while my bosses' "paper recommendations" are piling up on my desk, I think I 'll follow Virginia's advice about it. I mean after all, we are supposed to take an expert opinion before serious undertakings, aren't we?