Is it normal to have a hard time comprehending academic papers?












49














I am starting my PhD in statistics program next year, and I have some concerns.
In my institution, there is a mandatory course that every PhD student has to take in lieu of taking one qualifying examination.
The course requires students to read five academic papers and write a report, which will be graded by faculty members.



I was browsing through the reading list for this course, and I often find myself pondering over one twenty-page paper for days and weeks because I want to make sure that I understand all the math, concepts, and other details of the paper.
I am supposed to make a report for one paper/month, and I am now quite worried about what I am expected to do as a PhD student because it feels like it takes me forever to comprehend a single paper.
I feel discouraged because I have done very well in my bachelor’s and master’s programs in statistics, but I am having such a hard time comprehending these academic papers.



Is it normal for beginning PhD students to have a hard time comprehending academic papers?










share|improve this question




















  • 59




    One thing that's important to learn on the meta level is how deep your understanding of a single unit of knowledge (e.g. a paper, a concept etc.) needs to be a at a given time for a given purpose. Many beginners get lost in various rabbit holes because they overestimate how deep they need to go.
    – henning
    Dec 28 at 0:45








  • 1




    Different problem, but partly applicable: academia.stackexchange.com/questions/89032/…
    – henning
    Dec 28 at 0:51






  • 3




    Who selects the 5 papers? If you choose them yourself, either randomly or based on the fact that the title looks interesting, you will eventually discover what proportion of papers in your field aren't worth understanding anyway. In my experience, that is at least 90% of what gets published in high quality journals (ignoring the rest completely) but YMMV.
    – alephzero
    Dec 28 at 11:16








  • 1




    I am disappointed that academia hasn't fully embraced the technology of hyperlinks. It would be great if papers which used high-level jargon would link to a source which could describe what that term actually means. Wikipedia has managed it. Why not academia?
    – joeytwiddle
    2 days ago






  • 5




    I know it is tempting to think that authors should put a little effort into making the paper more accessible to non-experts, but the simple fact is that in many fields the group of people who would practically benefit from that effort is of the same scale as the group that doesn't need it (rather than being much larger). Abstruse Goose explains: abstrusegoose.com/272 . And writing papers is hard as it is: that technical language exists for a reason and it makes it easier for the in-group to process the papers.
    – dmckee
    yesterday
















49














I am starting my PhD in statistics program next year, and I have some concerns.
In my institution, there is a mandatory course that every PhD student has to take in lieu of taking one qualifying examination.
The course requires students to read five academic papers and write a report, which will be graded by faculty members.



I was browsing through the reading list for this course, and I often find myself pondering over one twenty-page paper for days and weeks because I want to make sure that I understand all the math, concepts, and other details of the paper.
I am supposed to make a report for one paper/month, and I am now quite worried about what I am expected to do as a PhD student because it feels like it takes me forever to comprehend a single paper.
I feel discouraged because I have done very well in my bachelor’s and master’s programs in statistics, but I am having such a hard time comprehending these academic papers.



Is it normal for beginning PhD students to have a hard time comprehending academic papers?










share|improve this question




















  • 59




    One thing that's important to learn on the meta level is how deep your understanding of a single unit of knowledge (e.g. a paper, a concept etc.) needs to be a at a given time for a given purpose. Many beginners get lost in various rabbit holes because they overestimate how deep they need to go.
    – henning
    Dec 28 at 0:45








  • 1




    Different problem, but partly applicable: academia.stackexchange.com/questions/89032/…
    – henning
    Dec 28 at 0:51






  • 3




    Who selects the 5 papers? If you choose them yourself, either randomly or based on the fact that the title looks interesting, you will eventually discover what proportion of papers in your field aren't worth understanding anyway. In my experience, that is at least 90% of what gets published in high quality journals (ignoring the rest completely) but YMMV.
    – alephzero
    Dec 28 at 11:16








  • 1




    I am disappointed that academia hasn't fully embraced the technology of hyperlinks. It would be great if papers which used high-level jargon would link to a source which could describe what that term actually means. Wikipedia has managed it. Why not academia?
    – joeytwiddle
    2 days ago






  • 5




    I know it is tempting to think that authors should put a little effort into making the paper more accessible to non-experts, but the simple fact is that in many fields the group of people who would practically benefit from that effort is of the same scale as the group that doesn't need it (rather than being much larger). Abstruse Goose explains: abstrusegoose.com/272 . And writing papers is hard as it is: that technical language exists for a reason and it makes it easier for the in-group to process the papers.
    – dmckee
    yesterday














49












49








49


11





I am starting my PhD in statistics program next year, and I have some concerns.
In my institution, there is a mandatory course that every PhD student has to take in lieu of taking one qualifying examination.
The course requires students to read five academic papers and write a report, which will be graded by faculty members.



I was browsing through the reading list for this course, and I often find myself pondering over one twenty-page paper for days and weeks because I want to make sure that I understand all the math, concepts, and other details of the paper.
I am supposed to make a report for one paper/month, and I am now quite worried about what I am expected to do as a PhD student because it feels like it takes me forever to comprehend a single paper.
I feel discouraged because I have done very well in my bachelor’s and master’s programs in statistics, but I am having such a hard time comprehending these academic papers.



Is it normal for beginning PhD students to have a hard time comprehending academic papers?










share|improve this question















I am starting my PhD in statistics program next year, and I have some concerns.
In my institution, there is a mandatory course that every PhD student has to take in lieu of taking one qualifying examination.
The course requires students to read five academic papers and write a report, which will be graded by faculty members.



I was browsing through the reading list for this course, and I often find myself pondering over one twenty-page paper for days and weeks because I want to make sure that I understand all the math, concepts, and other details of the paper.
I am supposed to make a report for one paper/month, and I am now quite worried about what I am expected to do as a PhD student because it feels like it takes me forever to comprehend a single paper.
I feel discouraged because I have done very well in my bachelor’s and master’s programs in statistics, but I am having such a hard time comprehending these academic papers.



Is it normal for beginning PhD students to have a hard time comprehending academic papers?







phd coursework reading






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Dec 28 at 12:19









Wrzlprmft

32.7k9106180




32.7k9106180










asked Dec 27 at 22:37









HDC

29426




29426








  • 59




    One thing that's important to learn on the meta level is how deep your understanding of a single unit of knowledge (e.g. a paper, a concept etc.) needs to be a at a given time for a given purpose. Many beginners get lost in various rabbit holes because they overestimate how deep they need to go.
    – henning
    Dec 28 at 0:45








  • 1




    Different problem, but partly applicable: academia.stackexchange.com/questions/89032/…
    – henning
    Dec 28 at 0:51






  • 3




    Who selects the 5 papers? If you choose them yourself, either randomly or based on the fact that the title looks interesting, you will eventually discover what proportion of papers in your field aren't worth understanding anyway. In my experience, that is at least 90% of what gets published in high quality journals (ignoring the rest completely) but YMMV.
    – alephzero
    Dec 28 at 11:16








  • 1




    I am disappointed that academia hasn't fully embraced the technology of hyperlinks. It would be great if papers which used high-level jargon would link to a source which could describe what that term actually means. Wikipedia has managed it. Why not academia?
    – joeytwiddle
    2 days ago






  • 5




    I know it is tempting to think that authors should put a little effort into making the paper more accessible to non-experts, but the simple fact is that in many fields the group of people who would practically benefit from that effort is of the same scale as the group that doesn't need it (rather than being much larger). Abstruse Goose explains: abstrusegoose.com/272 . And writing papers is hard as it is: that technical language exists for a reason and it makes it easier for the in-group to process the papers.
    – dmckee
    yesterday














  • 59




    One thing that's important to learn on the meta level is how deep your understanding of a single unit of knowledge (e.g. a paper, a concept etc.) needs to be a at a given time for a given purpose. Many beginners get lost in various rabbit holes because they overestimate how deep they need to go.
    – henning
    Dec 28 at 0:45








  • 1




    Different problem, but partly applicable: academia.stackexchange.com/questions/89032/…
    – henning
    Dec 28 at 0:51






  • 3




    Who selects the 5 papers? If you choose them yourself, either randomly or based on the fact that the title looks interesting, you will eventually discover what proportion of papers in your field aren't worth understanding anyway. In my experience, that is at least 90% of what gets published in high quality journals (ignoring the rest completely) but YMMV.
    – alephzero
    Dec 28 at 11:16








  • 1




    I am disappointed that academia hasn't fully embraced the technology of hyperlinks. It would be great if papers which used high-level jargon would link to a source which could describe what that term actually means. Wikipedia has managed it. Why not academia?
    – joeytwiddle
    2 days ago






  • 5




    I know it is tempting to think that authors should put a little effort into making the paper more accessible to non-experts, but the simple fact is that in many fields the group of people who would practically benefit from that effort is of the same scale as the group that doesn't need it (rather than being much larger). Abstruse Goose explains: abstrusegoose.com/272 . And writing papers is hard as it is: that technical language exists for a reason and it makes it easier for the in-group to process the papers.
    – dmckee
    yesterday








59




59




One thing that's important to learn on the meta level is how deep your understanding of a single unit of knowledge (e.g. a paper, a concept etc.) needs to be a at a given time for a given purpose. Many beginners get lost in various rabbit holes because they overestimate how deep they need to go.
– henning
Dec 28 at 0:45






One thing that's important to learn on the meta level is how deep your understanding of a single unit of knowledge (e.g. a paper, a concept etc.) needs to be a at a given time for a given purpose. Many beginners get lost in various rabbit holes because they overestimate how deep they need to go.
– henning
Dec 28 at 0:45






1




1




Different problem, but partly applicable: academia.stackexchange.com/questions/89032/…
– henning
Dec 28 at 0:51




Different problem, but partly applicable: academia.stackexchange.com/questions/89032/…
– henning
Dec 28 at 0:51




3




3




Who selects the 5 papers? If you choose them yourself, either randomly or based on the fact that the title looks interesting, you will eventually discover what proportion of papers in your field aren't worth understanding anyway. In my experience, that is at least 90% of what gets published in high quality journals (ignoring the rest completely) but YMMV.
– alephzero
Dec 28 at 11:16






Who selects the 5 papers? If you choose them yourself, either randomly or based on the fact that the title looks interesting, you will eventually discover what proportion of papers in your field aren't worth understanding anyway. In my experience, that is at least 90% of what gets published in high quality journals (ignoring the rest completely) but YMMV.
– alephzero
Dec 28 at 11:16






1




1




I am disappointed that academia hasn't fully embraced the technology of hyperlinks. It would be great if papers which used high-level jargon would link to a source which could describe what that term actually means. Wikipedia has managed it. Why not academia?
– joeytwiddle
2 days ago




I am disappointed that academia hasn't fully embraced the technology of hyperlinks. It would be great if papers which used high-level jargon would link to a source which could describe what that term actually means. Wikipedia has managed it. Why not academia?
– joeytwiddle
2 days ago




5




5




I know it is tempting to think that authors should put a little effort into making the paper more accessible to non-experts, but the simple fact is that in many fields the group of people who would practically benefit from that effort is of the same scale as the group that doesn't need it (rather than being much larger). Abstruse Goose explains: abstrusegoose.com/272 . And writing papers is hard as it is: that technical language exists for a reason and it makes it easier for the in-group to process the papers.
– dmckee
yesterday




I know it is tempting to think that authors should put a little effort into making the paper more accessible to non-experts, but the simple fact is that in many fields the group of people who would practically benefit from that effort is of the same scale as the group that doesn't need it (rather than being much larger). Abstruse Goose explains: abstrusegoose.com/272 . And writing papers is hard as it is: that technical language exists for a reason and it makes it easier for the in-group to process the papers.
– dmckee
yesterday










6 Answers
6






active

oldest

votes


















95














Yes, yes it is. But it gets easier. What most people don't realize when starting out reading academic papers, is that not every paper is an island (to paraphrase...). Terminology and 'lingo' is something you learn over time, and suddenly you realize that you no longer have to look up every second concept you stumble upon in a paper - it simply references stuff that you already know.



This is of course also the reason that forcing new students to read papers, and even write a report about them to make sure that the papers have been properly digested, is a very good idea. The fact that members of faculty even take time out to grade these reports, tells me that you are probably in capable hands.






share|improve this answer

















  • 24




    "It gets easier. Every day, it gets a little easier. But you gotta do it every day. That's the hard part. But it does get easier."
    – Pedro Tamaroff
    Dec 28 at 16:04






  • 1




    Indeed, this is the very process of research.
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    yesterday



















40














I am in my second year of a statistics PhD. I have by now examined many hundreds of papers. Some of them are, I now know, of only tangential relevance to my research. Others are relevant but when I first saw them I did not understand them enough to know even that. And some are so relevant that I have sought to reproduce their findings and in doing so I have re-read them many times, often finding something new in them that I had not previously noticed. In parallel with reading these papers I have been learning about branches of statistics that I knew nothing of before.



The most important thing to realise, as I now have, is that academic papers are not generally written with the aim of explaining something to a novice, but rather are there to tell someone who is already expert how wonderful the author's research in that field of expertise should be seen to be.The day will come when you too can write papers that only a few people will understand, and to get there you will have struggled through countless really difficult papers.



Now, given that academic papers in statistics are bound to be hard to understand and that you have been asked to summarise as many as five of them in a short time, you have to accept that your summary will not be based on a complete understanding of all the material in all the papers. Imagine that you are a journalist rather than a researcher. You need to be able to write down:




  1. what question does this paper seek to answer?

  2. what is the answer?

  3. what reasons does the author give for that answer?


If you can do that you already have a good summary of the paper. To do it you do not need to understand all the author's reasons, still less agree with them all. Later in your research, maybe, you will recall one of these papers and realise that it is relevant to your own work: then you really do have to roll up your sleeves and understand in detail, but not now.






share|improve this answer

















  • 5




    w.r.t. paragraph two I am reminded of the following: "Oppenheimer once said that most people gave talks to show others how to do the calculation, while Schwinger gave talks to show that only he could do it." (The paper I found this in, however, continues: "Although a commonly shared view, this witticism is unkind and untrue.")
    – davidbak
    Dec 28 at 0:45






  • 3




    Re: "The day will come when you too can write papers that only a few people will understand, and to get there you will have struggled through countless really difficult papers". I'm hoping that that day never comes for you. When you write, write for the reader, not as @davidbak points out "to show that only [you[ can do it". It's possible to write an advanced paper that is readable. Learn (and strive) to do that instead.
    – Flydog57
    Dec 28 at 19:58



















13














Yes. But it's a question of practice. More reading= More understanding. More understanding easier to understand a new paper.



But you do not need to understand every single phrase.
For instance, if it is not exactly your field, I would jump over the methods section.



I got a recommendation during my Ph.D. first read Abstract, second Intro, third Conclusion. Some cases 3rd Results, 4th Conclusion.
The more you read the more you'll understand.



Read, read, read. That's the key



Reviews on the field of study are excellent starting points






share|improve this answer










New contributor




pink.slash is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 1




    Reviews are a very good starting point.
    – pink.slash
    Dec 28 at 0:29










  • @pinkslash The recommendation you had was good. Do you wonder why it is that authors do not write their papers in that order? I do not think that there is a good reason.
    – JeremyC
    Dec 28 at 1:26










  • Completely agree with your advice. I'd also add "look at the figures" between Abstract and Intro.
    – user71659
    Dec 28 at 7:46










  • I like this advice a lot. In some sense it's like peeling an onion: (1) Abstract gives you executive summary; if promising then: (2) Intro & Conclusion bookends together give more detail to overall story; if still promising then: (3) read the whole Methods/Results heart of the paper and get all the gory details.
    – Daniel R. Collins
    14 hours ago





















4














Unfortunately, a paper is limited in length by money (lots of publications have a per page cost after their standard length) or guidelines. As such, authors have to sum up lots of dense information in a small space. They may take for granted lots of "known" papers. In a book, the authors would have more space to develop their ideas, add explanations that are only a citation in a paper.



It is hard indeed to start reading papers (it's even harder when it's not your mother tongue). I remember when I started that my understanding was very shallow. With time and experience, I'm now capable of understanding also the context, not just the paper itself. At the beginning, I had to look at the used terms and look them up online or read the cited papers/books to understand some of the mathematical basis for the paper I needed.



But it gets better, the curve in a specific domain may be similar close to 1-e^-t. Going from one domain to another gets easier, but there is always a learning curve to understand what everyone in a (new) domain takes for granted.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




Matthieu Brucher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.


















  • Papers are limited in length more by venue length restrictions (conferences, journals etc.) than by money - as far as I can tell.
    – einpoklum
    2 days ago










  • Yes, but you can (for papers) pay for more pages. All this limits the amount of explanations you can add.
    – Matthieu Brucher
    2 days ago










  • That is only true in some fields and some publications. In my (limited) experience in Computer Science - that's not an option even for journal papers; and I am 100% certain it is not an option for conference papers. The page limit is very strict and money has nothing to do with it.
    – einpoklum
    2 days ago










  • I had a different experience in Computer Science for journal papers. But I do agree that I should have stated that some have guidelines. This is now fixed.
    – Matthieu Brucher
    2 days ago












  • Indeed, papers are limited in length, but some authors write parallel "technical reports" which do not have the same length constraints.
    – emory
    19 hours ago



















2














I agree with @nabla's answer that as you go further and read more and more papers, it gets easier for you and you don't have the difficulties in comprehending the terminologies. It is also very good that you think a lot on each individual paper and want to understand each bit of it. However, remember that you should know how to read a paper. Reading a paper is different from studying a mathematical textbook, which you do in order to prepare yourself for the exam. I suggest you the following steps:




  1. First, consider yourself as a reviewer, who is employed to judge the paper and its novelties and then gives his/her opinion.


  2. Try to scan the paper first. Read the abstract and conclusion and try to understand the framework of the paper.


  3. After reading the abstract you will understand how far you are from the topic. Thus, try to search a little about the terminologies and methods that you are unfamiliar with (by simply googling them and checking Wikipedia).


  4. Read the introduction carefully to see the state of art and the previous studies on the topic. People usually explain things in detail in the introduction, if no they refer to some general and review papers. Try to get those papers and read them.


  5. Now read the whole paper. But remember nobody expects you to understand the mathematical model that the author is presenting in details. Try to have an idea about it. You are not going to write about the detailed mathematics in your report. Don't waste your time on that. If you are personally interested in details then that is another story.


  6. After finishing the paper, ask the following questions from yourself:
    6.1. What was the main idea of the paper?
    6.2 What was the method that the author implemented?
    6.3 how satisfactory were the results?
    and so on...


  7. Try to write your report according to the above information.



Good Luck!






share|improve this answer










New contributor




Msen Rezaee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.


























    1














    Every person had that time of not comprehending some papers/ academic papers especially if it does have a lot of information. More pages to read we sometimes forget the ideas contained in some pages while reading the concurrent ones. So I think it is very normal if sometimes you did not understand a certain concept because everybody does. What I did if that time happens to me, I read it succeedingly 5 or more times to grasp the information contained in the article and then I can now write my own reflection or output.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    user102391 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.

















      protected by Alexandros 6 hours ago



      Thank you for your interest in this question.
      Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



      Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?














      6 Answers
      6






      active

      oldest

      votes








      6 Answers
      6






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      95














      Yes, yes it is. But it gets easier. What most people don't realize when starting out reading academic papers, is that not every paper is an island (to paraphrase...). Terminology and 'lingo' is something you learn over time, and suddenly you realize that you no longer have to look up every second concept you stumble upon in a paper - it simply references stuff that you already know.



      This is of course also the reason that forcing new students to read papers, and even write a report about them to make sure that the papers have been properly digested, is a very good idea. The fact that members of faculty even take time out to grade these reports, tells me that you are probably in capable hands.






      share|improve this answer

















      • 24




        "It gets easier. Every day, it gets a little easier. But you gotta do it every day. That's the hard part. But it does get easier."
        – Pedro Tamaroff
        Dec 28 at 16:04






      • 1




        Indeed, this is the very process of research.
        – Lightness Races in Orbit
        yesterday
















      95














      Yes, yes it is. But it gets easier. What most people don't realize when starting out reading academic papers, is that not every paper is an island (to paraphrase...). Terminology and 'lingo' is something you learn over time, and suddenly you realize that you no longer have to look up every second concept you stumble upon in a paper - it simply references stuff that you already know.



      This is of course also the reason that forcing new students to read papers, and even write a report about them to make sure that the papers have been properly digested, is a very good idea. The fact that members of faculty even take time out to grade these reports, tells me that you are probably in capable hands.






      share|improve this answer

















      • 24




        "It gets easier. Every day, it gets a little easier. But you gotta do it every day. That's the hard part. But it does get easier."
        – Pedro Tamaroff
        Dec 28 at 16:04






      • 1




        Indeed, this is the very process of research.
        – Lightness Races in Orbit
        yesterday














      95












      95








      95






      Yes, yes it is. But it gets easier. What most people don't realize when starting out reading academic papers, is that not every paper is an island (to paraphrase...). Terminology and 'lingo' is something you learn over time, and suddenly you realize that you no longer have to look up every second concept you stumble upon in a paper - it simply references stuff that you already know.



      This is of course also the reason that forcing new students to read papers, and even write a report about them to make sure that the papers have been properly digested, is a very good idea. The fact that members of faculty even take time out to grade these reports, tells me that you are probably in capable hands.






      share|improve this answer












      Yes, yes it is. But it gets easier. What most people don't realize when starting out reading academic papers, is that not every paper is an island (to paraphrase...). Terminology and 'lingo' is something you learn over time, and suddenly you realize that you no longer have to look up every second concept you stumble upon in a paper - it simply references stuff that you already know.



      This is of course also the reason that forcing new students to read papers, and even write a report about them to make sure that the papers have been properly digested, is a very good idea. The fact that members of faculty even take time out to grade these reports, tells me that you are probably in capable hands.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered Dec 27 at 22:44









      nabla

      5,02211330




      5,02211330








      • 24




        "It gets easier. Every day, it gets a little easier. But you gotta do it every day. That's the hard part. But it does get easier."
        – Pedro Tamaroff
        Dec 28 at 16:04






      • 1




        Indeed, this is the very process of research.
        – Lightness Races in Orbit
        yesterday














      • 24




        "It gets easier. Every day, it gets a little easier. But you gotta do it every day. That's the hard part. But it does get easier."
        – Pedro Tamaroff
        Dec 28 at 16:04






      • 1




        Indeed, this is the very process of research.
        – Lightness Races in Orbit
        yesterday








      24




      24




      "It gets easier. Every day, it gets a little easier. But you gotta do it every day. That's the hard part. But it does get easier."
      – Pedro Tamaroff
      Dec 28 at 16:04




      "It gets easier. Every day, it gets a little easier. But you gotta do it every day. That's the hard part. But it does get easier."
      – Pedro Tamaroff
      Dec 28 at 16:04




      1




      1




      Indeed, this is the very process of research.
      – Lightness Races in Orbit
      yesterday




      Indeed, this is the very process of research.
      – Lightness Races in Orbit
      yesterday











      40














      I am in my second year of a statistics PhD. I have by now examined many hundreds of papers. Some of them are, I now know, of only tangential relevance to my research. Others are relevant but when I first saw them I did not understand them enough to know even that. And some are so relevant that I have sought to reproduce their findings and in doing so I have re-read them many times, often finding something new in them that I had not previously noticed. In parallel with reading these papers I have been learning about branches of statistics that I knew nothing of before.



      The most important thing to realise, as I now have, is that academic papers are not generally written with the aim of explaining something to a novice, but rather are there to tell someone who is already expert how wonderful the author's research in that field of expertise should be seen to be.The day will come when you too can write papers that only a few people will understand, and to get there you will have struggled through countless really difficult papers.



      Now, given that academic papers in statistics are bound to be hard to understand and that you have been asked to summarise as many as five of them in a short time, you have to accept that your summary will not be based on a complete understanding of all the material in all the papers. Imagine that you are a journalist rather than a researcher. You need to be able to write down:




      1. what question does this paper seek to answer?

      2. what is the answer?

      3. what reasons does the author give for that answer?


      If you can do that you already have a good summary of the paper. To do it you do not need to understand all the author's reasons, still less agree with them all. Later in your research, maybe, you will recall one of these papers and realise that it is relevant to your own work: then you really do have to roll up your sleeves and understand in detail, but not now.






      share|improve this answer

















      • 5




        w.r.t. paragraph two I am reminded of the following: "Oppenheimer once said that most people gave talks to show others how to do the calculation, while Schwinger gave talks to show that only he could do it." (The paper I found this in, however, continues: "Although a commonly shared view, this witticism is unkind and untrue.")
        – davidbak
        Dec 28 at 0:45






      • 3




        Re: "The day will come when you too can write papers that only a few people will understand, and to get there you will have struggled through countless really difficult papers". I'm hoping that that day never comes for you. When you write, write for the reader, not as @davidbak points out "to show that only [you[ can do it". It's possible to write an advanced paper that is readable. Learn (and strive) to do that instead.
        – Flydog57
        Dec 28 at 19:58
















      40














      I am in my second year of a statistics PhD. I have by now examined many hundreds of papers. Some of them are, I now know, of only tangential relevance to my research. Others are relevant but when I first saw them I did not understand them enough to know even that. And some are so relevant that I have sought to reproduce their findings and in doing so I have re-read them many times, often finding something new in them that I had not previously noticed. In parallel with reading these papers I have been learning about branches of statistics that I knew nothing of before.



      The most important thing to realise, as I now have, is that academic papers are not generally written with the aim of explaining something to a novice, but rather are there to tell someone who is already expert how wonderful the author's research in that field of expertise should be seen to be.The day will come when you too can write papers that only a few people will understand, and to get there you will have struggled through countless really difficult papers.



      Now, given that academic papers in statistics are bound to be hard to understand and that you have been asked to summarise as many as five of them in a short time, you have to accept that your summary will not be based on a complete understanding of all the material in all the papers. Imagine that you are a journalist rather than a researcher. You need to be able to write down:




      1. what question does this paper seek to answer?

      2. what is the answer?

      3. what reasons does the author give for that answer?


      If you can do that you already have a good summary of the paper. To do it you do not need to understand all the author's reasons, still less agree with them all. Later in your research, maybe, you will recall one of these papers and realise that it is relevant to your own work: then you really do have to roll up your sleeves and understand in detail, but not now.






      share|improve this answer

















      • 5




        w.r.t. paragraph two I am reminded of the following: "Oppenheimer once said that most people gave talks to show others how to do the calculation, while Schwinger gave talks to show that only he could do it." (The paper I found this in, however, continues: "Although a commonly shared view, this witticism is unkind and untrue.")
        – davidbak
        Dec 28 at 0:45






      • 3




        Re: "The day will come when you too can write papers that only a few people will understand, and to get there you will have struggled through countless really difficult papers". I'm hoping that that day never comes for you. When you write, write for the reader, not as @davidbak points out "to show that only [you[ can do it". It's possible to write an advanced paper that is readable. Learn (and strive) to do that instead.
        – Flydog57
        Dec 28 at 19:58














      40












      40








      40






      I am in my second year of a statistics PhD. I have by now examined many hundreds of papers. Some of them are, I now know, of only tangential relevance to my research. Others are relevant but when I first saw them I did not understand them enough to know even that. And some are so relevant that I have sought to reproduce their findings and in doing so I have re-read them many times, often finding something new in them that I had not previously noticed. In parallel with reading these papers I have been learning about branches of statistics that I knew nothing of before.



      The most important thing to realise, as I now have, is that academic papers are not generally written with the aim of explaining something to a novice, but rather are there to tell someone who is already expert how wonderful the author's research in that field of expertise should be seen to be.The day will come when you too can write papers that only a few people will understand, and to get there you will have struggled through countless really difficult papers.



      Now, given that academic papers in statistics are bound to be hard to understand and that you have been asked to summarise as many as five of them in a short time, you have to accept that your summary will not be based on a complete understanding of all the material in all the papers. Imagine that you are a journalist rather than a researcher. You need to be able to write down:




      1. what question does this paper seek to answer?

      2. what is the answer?

      3. what reasons does the author give for that answer?


      If you can do that you already have a good summary of the paper. To do it you do not need to understand all the author's reasons, still less agree with them all. Later in your research, maybe, you will recall one of these papers and realise that it is relevant to your own work: then you really do have to roll up your sleeves and understand in detail, but not now.






      share|improve this answer












      I am in my second year of a statistics PhD. I have by now examined many hundreds of papers. Some of them are, I now know, of only tangential relevance to my research. Others are relevant but when I first saw them I did not understand them enough to know even that. And some are so relevant that I have sought to reproduce their findings and in doing so I have re-read them many times, often finding something new in them that I had not previously noticed. In parallel with reading these papers I have been learning about branches of statistics that I knew nothing of before.



      The most important thing to realise, as I now have, is that academic papers are not generally written with the aim of explaining something to a novice, but rather are there to tell someone who is already expert how wonderful the author's research in that field of expertise should be seen to be.The day will come when you too can write papers that only a few people will understand, and to get there you will have struggled through countless really difficult papers.



      Now, given that academic papers in statistics are bound to be hard to understand and that you have been asked to summarise as many as five of them in a short time, you have to accept that your summary will not be based on a complete understanding of all the material in all the papers. Imagine that you are a journalist rather than a researcher. You need to be able to write down:




      1. what question does this paper seek to answer?

      2. what is the answer?

      3. what reasons does the author give for that answer?


      If you can do that you already have a good summary of the paper. To do it you do not need to understand all the author's reasons, still less agree with them all. Later in your research, maybe, you will recall one of these papers and realise that it is relevant to your own work: then you really do have to roll up your sleeves and understand in detail, but not now.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered Dec 27 at 23:24









      JeremyC

      72438




      72438








      • 5




        w.r.t. paragraph two I am reminded of the following: "Oppenheimer once said that most people gave talks to show others how to do the calculation, while Schwinger gave talks to show that only he could do it." (The paper I found this in, however, continues: "Although a commonly shared view, this witticism is unkind and untrue.")
        – davidbak
        Dec 28 at 0:45






      • 3




        Re: "The day will come when you too can write papers that only a few people will understand, and to get there you will have struggled through countless really difficult papers". I'm hoping that that day never comes for you. When you write, write for the reader, not as @davidbak points out "to show that only [you[ can do it". It's possible to write an advanced paper that is readable. Learn (and strive) to do that instead.
        – Flydog57
        Dec 28 at 19:58














      • 5




        w.r.t. paragraph two I am reminded of the following: "Oppenheimer once said that most people gave talks to show others how to do the calculation, while Schwinger gave talks to show that only he could do it." (The paper I found this in, however, continues: "Although a commonly shared view, this witticism is unkind and untrue.")
        – davidbak
        Dec 28 at 0:45






      • 3




        Re: "The day will come when you too can write papers that only a few people will understand, and to get there you will have struggled through countless really difficult papers". I'm hoping that that day never comes for you. When you write, write for the reader, not as @davidbak points out "to show that only [you[ can do it". It's possible to write an advanced paper that is readable. Learn (and strive) to do that instead.
        – Flydog57
        Dec 28 at 19:58








      5




      5




      w.r.t. paragraph two I am reminded of the following: "Oppenheimer once said that most people gave talks to show others how to do the calculation, while Schwinger gave talks to show that only he could do it." (The paper I found this in, however, continues: "Although a commonly shared view, this witticism is unkind and untrue.")
      – davidbak
      Dec 28 at 0:45




      w.r.t. paragraph two I am reminded of the following: "Oppenheimer once said that most people gave talks to show others how to do the calculation, while Schwinger gave talks to show that only he could do it." (The paper I found this in, however, continues: "Although a commonly shared view, this witticism is unkind and untrue.")
      – davidbak
      Dec 28 at 0:45




      3




      3




      Re: "The day will come when you too can write papers that only a few people will understand, and to get there you will have struggled through countless really difficult papers". I'm hoping that that day never comes for you. When you write, write for the reader, not as @davidbak points out "to show that only [you[ can do it". It's possible to write an advanced paper that is readable. Learn (and strive) to do that instead.
      – Flydog57
      Dec 28 at 19:58




      Re: "The day will come when you too can write papers that only a few people will understand, and to get there you will have struggled through countless really difficult papers". I'm hoping that that day never comes for you. When you write, write for the reader, not as @davidbak points out "to show that only [you[ can do it". It's possible to write an advanced paper that is readable. Learn (and strive) to do that instead.
      – Flydog57
      Dec 28 at 19:58











      13














      Yes. But it's a question of practice. More reading= More understanding. More understanding easier to understand a new paper.



      But you do not need to understand every single phrase.
      For instance, if it is not exactly your field, I would jump over the methods section.



      I got a recommendation during my Ph.D. first read Abstract, second Intro, third Conclusion. Some cases 3rd Results, 4th Conclusion.
      The more you read the more you'll understand.



      Read, read, read. That's the key



      Reviews on the field of study are excellent starting points






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      pink.slash is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.














      • 1




        Reviews are a very good starting point.
        – pink.slash
        Dec 28 at 0:29










      • @pinkslash The recommendation you had was good. Do you wonder why it is that authors do not write their papers in that order? I do not think that there is a good reason.
        – JeremyC
        Dec 28 at 1:26










      • Completely agree with your advice. I'd also add "look at the figures" between Abstract and Intro.
        – user71659
        Dec 28 at 7:46










      • I like this advice a lot. In some sense it's like peeling an onion: (1) Abstract gives you executive summary; if promising then: (2) Intro & Conclusion bookends together give more detail to overall story; if still promising then: (3) read the whole Methods/Results heart of the paper and get all the gory details.
        – Daniel R. Collins
        14 hours ago


















      13














      Yes. But it's a question of practice. More reading= More understanding. More understanding easier to understand a new paper.



      But you do not need to understand every single phrase.
      For instance, if it is not exactly your field, I would jump over the methods section.



      I got a recommendation during my Ph.D. first read Abstract, second Intro, third Conclusion. Some cases 3rd Results, 4th Conclusion.
      The more you read the more you'll understand.



      Read, read, read. That's the key



      Reviews on the field of study are excellent starting points






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      pink.slash is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.














      • 1




        Reviews are a very good starting point.
        – pink.slash
        Dec 28 at 0:29










      • @pinkslash The recommendation you had was good. Do you wonder why it is that authors do not write their papers in that order? I do not think that there is a good reason.
        – JeremyC
        Dec 28 at 1:26










      • Completely agree with your advice. I'd also add "look at the figures" between Abstract and Intro.
        – user71659
        Dec 28 at 7:46










      • I like this advice a lot. In some sense it's like peeling an onion: (1) Abstract gives you executive summary; if promising then: (2) Intro & Conclusion bookends together give more detail to overall story; if still promising then: (3) read the whole Methods/Results heart of the paper and get all the gory details.
        – Daniel R. Collins
        14 hours ago
















      13












      13








      13






      Yes. But it's a question of practice. More reading= More understanding. More understanding easier to understand a new paper.



      But you do not need to understand every single phrase.
      For instance, if it is not exactly your field, I would jump over the methods section.



      I got a recommendation during my Ph.D. first read Abstract, second Intro, third Conclusion. Some cases 3rd Results, 4th Conclusion.
      The more you read the more you'll understand.



      Read, read, read. That's the key



      Reviews on the field of study are excellent starting points






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      pink.slash is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      Yes. But it's a question of practice. More reading= More understanding. More understanding easier to understand a new paper.



      But you do not need to understand every single phrase.
      For instance, if it is not exactly your field, I would jump over the methods section.



      I got a recommendation during my Ph.D. first read Abstract, second Intro, third Conclusion. Some cases 3rd Results, 4th Conclusion.
      The more you read the more you'll understand.



      Read, read, read. That's the key



      Reviews on the field of study are excellent starting points







      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      pink.slash is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Dec 28 at 0:33





















      New contributor




      pink.slash is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      answered Dec 28 at 0:27









      pink.slash

      1313




      1313




      New contributor




      pink.slash is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      pink.slash is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      pink.slash is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.








      • 1




        Reviews are a very good starting point.
        – pink.slash
        Dec 28 at 0:29










      • @pinkslash The recommendation you had was good. Do you wonder why it is that authors do not write their papers in that order? I do not think that there is a good reason.
        – JeremyC
        Dec 28 at 1:26










      • Completely agree with your advice. I'd also add "look at the figures" between Abstract and Intro.
        – user71659
        Dec 28 at 7:46










      • I like this advice a lot. In some sense it's like peeling an onion: (1) Abstract gives you executive summary; if promising then: (2) Intro & Conclusion bookends together give more detail to overall story; if still promising then: (3) read the whole Methods/Results heart of the paper and get all the gory details.
        – Daniel R. Collins
        14 hours ago
















      • 1




        Reviews are a very good starting point.
        – pink.slash
        Dec 28 at 0:29










      • @pinkslash The recommendation you had was good. Do you wonder why it is that authors do not write their papers in that order? I do not think that there is a good reason.
        – JeremyC
        Dec 28 at 1:26










      • Completely agree with your advice. I'd also add "look at the figures" between Abstract and Intro.
        – user71659
        Dec 28 at 7:46










      • I like this advice a lot. In some sense it's like peeling an onion: (1) Abstract gives you executive summary; if promising then: (2) Intro & Conclusion bookends together give more detail to overall story; if still promising then: (3) read the whole Methods/Results heart of the paper and get all the gory details.
        – Daniel R. Collins
        14 hours ago










      1




      1




      Reviews are a very good starting point.
      – pink.slash
      Dec 28 at 0:29




      Reviews are a very good starting point.
      – pink.slash
      Dec 28 at 0:29












      @pinkslash The recommendation you had was good. Do you wonder why it is that authors do not write their papers in that order? I do not think that there is a good reason.
      – JeremyC
      Dec 28 at 1:26




      @pinkslash The recommendation you had was good. Do you wonder why it is that authors do not write their papers in that order? I do not think that there is a good reason.
      – JeremyC
      Dec 28 at 1:26












      Completely agree with your advice. I'd also add "look at the figures" between Abstract and Intro.
      – user71659
      Dec 28 at 7:46




      Completely agree with your advice. I'd also add "look at the figures" between Abstract and Intro.
      – user71659
      Dec 28 at 7:46












      I like this advice a lot. In some sense it's like peeling an onion: (1) Abstract gives you executive summary; if promising then: (2) Intro & Conclusion bookends together give more detail to overall story; if still promising then: (3) read the whole Methods/Results heart of the paper and get all the gory details.
      – Daniel R. Collins
      14 hours ago






      I like this advice a lot. In some sense it's like peeling an onion: (1) Abstract gives you executive summary; if promising then: (2) Intro & Conclusion bookends together give more detail to overall story; if still promising then: (3) read the whole Methods/Results heart of the paper and get all the gory details.
      – Daniel R. Collins
      14 hours ago













      4














      Unfortunately, a paper is limited in length by money (lots of publications have a per page cost after their standard length) or guidelines. As such, authors have to sum up lots of dense information in a small space. They may take for granted lots of "known" papers. In a book, the authors would have more space to develop their ideas, add explanations that are only a citation in a paper.



      It is hard indeed to start reading papers (it's even harder when it's not your mother tongue). I remember when I started that my understanding was very shallow. With time and experience, I'm now capable of understanding also the context, not just the paper itself. At the beginning, I had to look at the used terms and look them up online or read the cited papers/books to understand some of the mathematical basis for the paper I needed.



      But it gets better, the curve in a specific domain may be similar close to 1-e^-t. Going from one domain to another gets easier, but there is always a learning curve to understand what everyone in a (new) domain takes for granted.






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      Matthieu Brucher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.


















      • Papers are limited in length more by venue length restrictions (conferences, journals etc.) than by money - as far as I can tell.
        – einpoklum
        2 days ago










      • Yes, but you can (for papers) pay for more pages. All this limits the amount of explanations you can add.
        – Matthieu Brucher
        2 days ago










      • That is only true in some fields and some publications. In my (limited) experience in Computer Science - that's not an option even for journal papers; and I am 100% certain it is not an option for conference papers. The page limit is very strict and money has nothing to do with it.
        – einpoklum
        2 days ago










      • I had a different experience in Computer Science for journal papers. But I do agree that I should have stated that some have guidelines. This is now fixed.
        – Matthieu Brucher
        2 days ago












      • Indeed, papers are limited in length, but some authors write parallel "technical reports" which do not have the same length constraints.
        – emory
        19 hours ago
















      4














      Unfortunately, a paper is limited in length by money (lots of publications have a per page cost after their standard length) or guidelines. As such, authors have to sum up lots of dense information in a small space. They may take for granted lots of "known" papers. In a book, the authors would have more space to develop their ideas, add explanations that are only a citation in a paper.



      It is hard indeed to start reading papers (it's even harder when it's not your mother tongue). I remember when I started that my understanding was very shallow. With time and experience, I'm now capable of understanding also the context, not just the paper itself. At the beginning, I had to look at the used terms and look them up online or read the cited papers/books to understand some of the mathematical basis for the paper I needed.



      But it gets better, the curve in a specific domain may be similar close to 1-e^-t. Going from one domain to another gets easier, but there is always a learning curve to understand what everyone in a (new) domain takes for granted.






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      Matthieu Brucher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.


















      • Papers are limited in length more by venue length restrictions (conferences, journals etc.) than by money - as far as I can tell.
        – einpoklum
        2 days ago










      • Yes, but you can (for papers) pay for more pages. All this limits the amount of explanations you can add.
        – Matthieu Brucher
        2 days ago










      • That is only true in some fields and some publications. In my (limited) experience in Computer Science - that's not an option even for journal papers; and I am 100% certain it is not an option for conference papers. The page limit is very strict and money has nothing to do with it.
        – einpoklum
        2 days ago










      • I had a different experience in Computer Science for journal papers. But I do agree that I should have stated that some have guidelines. This is now fixed.
        – Matthieu Brucher
        2 days ago












      • Indeed, papers are limited in length, but some authors write parallel "technical reports" which do not have the same length constraints.
        – emory
        19 hours ago














      4












      4








      4






      Unfortunately, a paper is limited in length by money (lots of publications have a per page cost after their standard length) or guidelines. As such, authors have to sum up lots of dense information in a small space. They may take for granted lots of "known" papers. In a book, the authors would have more space to develop their ideas, add explanations that are only a citation in a paper.



      It is hard indeed to start reading papers (it's even harder when it's not your mother tongue). I remember when I started that my understanding was very shallow. With time and experience, I'm now capable of understanding also the context, not just the paper itself. At the beginning, I had to look at the used terms and look them up online or read the cited papers/books to understand some of the mathematical basis for the paper I needed.



      But it gets better, the curve in a specific domain may be similar close to 1-e^-t. Going from one domain to another gets easier, but there is always a learning curve to understand what everyone in a (new) domain takes for granted.






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      Matthieu Brucher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      Unfortunately, a paper is limited in length by money (lots of publications have a per page cost after their standard length) or guidelines. As such, authors have to sum up lots of dense information in a small space. They may take for granted lots of "known" papers. In a book, the authors would have more space to develop their ideas, add explanations that are only a citation in a paper.



      It is hard indeed to start reading papers (it's even harder when it's not your mother tongue). I remember when I started that my understanding was very shallow. With time and experience, I'm now capable of understanding also the context, not just the paper itself. At the beginning, I had to look at the used terms and look them up online or read the cited papers/books to understand some of the mathematical basis for the paper I needed.



      But it gets better, the curve in a specific domain may be similar close to 1-e^-t. Going from one domain to another gets easier, but there is always a learning curve to understand what everyone in a (new) domain takes for granted.







      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      Matthieu Brucher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited 2 days ago





















      New contributor




      Matthieu Brucher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      answered Dec 28 at 9:59









      Matthieu Brucher

      1414




      1414




      New contributor




      Matthieu Brucher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Matthieu Brucher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Matthieu Brucher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.












      • Papers are limited in length more by venue length restrictions (conferences, journals etc.) than by money - as far as I can tell.
        – einpoklum
        2 days ago










      • Yes, but you can (for papers) pay for more pages. All this limits the amount of explanations you can add.
        – Matthieu Brucher
        2 days ago










      • That is only true in some fields and some publications. In my (limited) experience in Computer Science - that's not an option even for journal papers; and I am 100% certain it is not an option for conference papers. The page limit is very strict and money has nothing to do with it.
        – einpoklum
        2 days ago










      • I had a different experience in Computer Science for journal papers. But I do agree that I should have stated that some have guidelines. This is now fixed.
        – Matthieu Brucher
        2 days ago












      • Indeed, papers are limited in length, but some authors write parallel "technical reports" which do not have the same length constraints.
        – emory
        19 hours ago


















      • Papers are limited in length more by venue length restrictions (conferences, journals etc.) than by money - as far as I can tell.
        – einpoklum
        2 days ago










      • Yes, but you can (for papers) pay for more pages. All this limits the amount of explanations you can add.
        – Matthieu Brucher
        2 days ago










      • That is only true in some fields and some publications. In my (limited) experience in Computer Science - that's not an option even for journal papers; and I am 100% certain it is not an option for conference papers. The page limit is very strict and money has nothing to do with it.
        – einpoklum
        2 days ago










      • I had a different experience in Computer Science for journal papers. But I do agree that I should have stated that some have guidelines. This is now fixed.
        – Matthieu Brucher
        2 days ago












      • Indeed, papers are limited in length, but some authors write parallel "technical reports" which do not have the same length constraints.
        – emory
        19 hours ago
















      Papers are limited in length more by venue length restrictions (conferences, journals etc.) than by money - as far as I can tell.
      – einpoklum
      2 days ago




      Papers are limited in length more by venue length restrictions (conferences, journals etc.) than by money - as far as I can tell.
      – einpoklum
      2 days ago












      Yes, but you can (for papers) pay for more pages. All this limits the amount of explanations you can add.
      – Matthieu Brucher
      2 days ago




      Yes, but you can (for papers) pay for more pages. All this limits the amount of explanations you can add.
      – Matthieu Brucher
      2 days ago












      That is only true in some fields and some publications. In my (limited) experience in Computer Science - that's not an option even for journal papers; and I am 100% certain it is not an option for conference papers. The page limit is very strict and money has nothing to do with it.
      – einpoklum
      2 days ago




      That is only true in some fields and some publications. In my (limited) experience in Computer Science - that's not an option even for journal papers; and I am 100% certain it is not an option for conference papers. The page limit is very strict and money has nothing to do with it.
      – einpoklum
      2 days ago












      I had a different experience in Computer Science for journal papers. But I do agree that I should have stated that some have guidelines. This is now fixed.
      – Matthieu Brucher
      2 days ago






      I had a different experience in Computer Science for journal papers. But I do agree that I should have stated that some have guidelines. This is now fixed.
      – Matthieu Brucher
      2 days ago














      Indeed, papers are limited in length, but some authors write parallel "technical reports" which do not have the same length constraints.
      – emory
      19 hours ago




      Indeed, papers are limited in length, but some authors write parallel "technical reports" which do not have the same length constraints.
      – emory
      19 hours ago











      2














      I agree with @nabla's answer that as you go further and read more and more papers, it gets easier for you and you don't have the difficulties in comprehending the terminologies. It is also very good that you think a lot on each individual paper and want to understand each bit of it. However, remember that you should know how to read a paper. Reading a paper is different from studying a mathematical textbook, which you do in order to prepare yourself for the exam. I suggest you the following steps:




      1. First, consider yourself as a reviewer, who is employed to judge the paper and its novelties and then gives his/her opinion.


      2. Try to scan the paper first. Read the abstract and conclusion and try to understand the framework of the paper.


      3. After reading the abstract you will understand how far you are from the topic. Thus, try to search a little about the terminologies and methods that you are unfamiliar with (by simply googling them and checking Wikipedia).


      4. Read the introduction carefully to see the state of art and the previous studies on the topic. People usually explain things in detail in the introduction, if no they refer to some general and review papers. Try to get those papers and read them.


      5. Now read the whole paper. But remember nobody expects you to understand the mathematical model that the author is presenting in details. Try to have an idea about it. You are not going to write about the detailed mathematics in your report. Don't waste your time on that. If you are personally interested in details then that is another story.


      6. After finishing the paper, ask the following questions from yourself:
        6.1. What was the main idea of the paper?
        6.2 What was the method that the author implemented?
        6.3 how satisfactory were the results?
        and so on...


      7. Try to write your report according to the above information.



      Good Luck!






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      Msen Rezaee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.























        2














        I agree with @nabla's answer that as you go further and read more and more papers, it gets easier for you and you don't have the difficulties in comprehending the terminologies. It is also very good that you think a lot on each individual paper and want to understand each bit of it. However, remember that you should know how to read a paper. Reading a paper is different from studying a mathematical textbook, which you do in order to prepare yourself for the exam. I suggest you the following steps:




        1. First, consider yourself as a reviewer, who is employed to judge the paper and its novelties and then gives his/her opinion.


        2. Try to scan the paper first. Read the abstract and conclusion and try to understand the framework of the paper.


        3. After reading the abstract you will understand how far you are from the topic. Thus, try to search a little about the terminologies and methods that you are unfamiliar with (by simply googling them and checking Wikipedia).


        4. Read the introduction carefully to see the state of art and the previous studies on the topic. People usually explain things in detail in the introduction, if no they refer to some general and review papers. Try to get those papers and read them.


        5. Now read the whole paper. But remember nobody expects you to understand the mathematical model that the author is presenting in details. Try to have an idea about it. You are not going to write about the detailed mathematics in your report. Don't waste your time on that. If you are personally interested in details then that is another story.


        6. After finishing the paper, ask the following questions from yourself:
          6.1. What was the main idea of the paper?
          6.2 What was the method that the author implemented?
          6.3 how satisfactory were the results?
          and so on...


        7. Try to write your report according to the above information.



        Good Luck!






        share|improve this answer










        New contributor




        Msen Rezaee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.





















          2












          2








          2






          I agree with @nabla's answer that as you go further and read more and more papers, it gets easier for you and you don't have the difficulties in comprehending the terminologies. It is also very good that you think a lot on each individual paper and want to understand each bit of it. However, remember that you should know how to read a paper. Reading a paper is different from studying a mathematical textbook, which you do in order to prepare yourself for the exam. I suggest you the following steps:




          1. First, consider yourself as a reviewer, who is employed to judge the paper and its novelties and then gives his/her opinion.


          2. Try to scan the paper first. Read the abstract and conclusion and try to understand the framework of the paper.


          3. After reading the abstract you will understand how far you are from the topic. Thus, try to search a little about the terminologies and methods that you are unfamiliar with (by simply googling them and checking Wikipedia).


          4. Read the introduction carefully to see the state of art and the previous studies on the topic. People usually explain things in detail in the introduction, if no they refer to some general and review papers. Try to get those papers and read them.


          5. Now read the whole paper. But remember nobody expects you to understand the mathematical model that the author is presenting in details. Try to have an idea about it. You are not going to write about the detailed mathematics in your report. Don't waste your time on that. If you are personally interested in details then that is another story.


          6. After finishing the paper, ask the following questions from yourself:
            6.1. What was the main idea of the paper?
            6.2 What was the method that the author implemented?
            6.3 how satisfactory were the results?
            and so on...


          7. Try to write your report according to the above information.



          Good Luck!






          share|improve this answer










          New contributor




          Msen Rezaee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          I agree with @nabla's answer that as you go further and read more and more papers, it gets easier for you and you don't have the difficulties in comprehending the terminologies. It is also very good that you think a lot on each individual paper and want to understand each bit of it. However, remember that you should know how to read a paper. Reading a paper is different from studying a mathematical textbook, which you do in order to prepare yourself for the exam. I suggest you the following steps:




          1. First, consider yourself as a reviewer, who is employed to judge the paper and its novelties and then gives his/her opinion.


          2. Try to scan the paper first. Read the abstract and conclusion and try to understand the framework of the paper.


          3. After reading the abstract you will understand how far you are from the topic. Thus, try to search a little about the terminologies and methods that you are unfamiliar with (by simply googling them and checking Wikipedia).


          4. Read the introduction carefully to see the state of art and the previous studies on the topic. People usually explain things in detail in the introduction, if no they refer to some general and review papers. Try to get those papers and read them.


          5. Now read the whole paper. But remember nobody expects you to understand the mathematical model that the author is presenting in details. Try to have an idea about it. You are not going to write about the detailed mathematics in your report. Don't waste your time on that. If you are personally interested in details then that is another story.


          6. After finishing the paper, ask the following questions from yourself:
            6.1. What was the main idea of the paper?
            6.2 What was the method that the author implemented?
            6.3 how satisfactory were the results?
            and so on...


          7. Try to write your report according to the above information.



          Good Luck!







          share|improve this answer










          New contributor




          Msen Rezaee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 17 hours ago









          V2Blast

          15218




          15218






          New contributor




          Msen Rezaee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          answered Dec 28 at 13:13









          Msen Rezaee

          1211




          1211




          New contributor




          Msen Rezaee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.





          New contributor





          Msen Rezaee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          Msen Rezaee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.























              1














              Every person had that time of not comprehending some papers/ academic papers especially if it does have a lot of information. More pages to read we sometimes forget the ideas contained in some pages while reading the concurrent ones. So I think it is very normal if sometimes you did not understand a certain concept because everybody does. What I did if that time happens to me, I read it succeedingly 5 or more times to grasp the information contained in the article and then I can now write my own reflection or output.






              share|improve this answer








              New contributor




              user102391 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.























                1














                Every person had that time of not comprehending some papers/ academic papers especially if it does have a lot of information. More pages to read we sometimes forget the ideas contained in some pages while reading the concurrent ones. So I think it is very normal if sometimes you did not understand a certain concept because everybody does. What I did if that time happens to me, I read it succeedingly 5 or more times to grasp the information contained in the article and then I can now write my own reflection or output.






                share|improve this answer








                New contributor




                user102391 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.





















                  1












                  1








                  1






                  Every person had that time of not comprehending some papers/ academic papers especially if it does have a lot of information. More pages to read we sometimes forget the ideas contained in some pages while reading the concurrent ones. So I think it is very normal if sometimes you did not understand a certain concept because everybody does. What I did if that time happens to me, I read it succeedingly 5 or more times to grasp the information contained in the article and then I can now write my own reflection or output.






                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  user102391 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  Every person had that time of not comprehending some papers/ academic papers especially if it does have a lot of information. More pages to read we sometimes forget the ideas contained in some pages while reading the concurrent ones. So I think it is very normal if sometimes you did not understand a certain concept because everybody does. What I did if that time happens to me, I read it succeedingly 5 or more times to grasp the information contained in the article and then I can now write my own reflection or output.







                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  user102391 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer






                  New contributor




                  user102391 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  answered Dec 28 at 4:50









                  user102391

                  111




                  111




                  New contributor




                  user102391 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





                  New contributor





                  user102391 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  user102391 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.

















                      protected by Alexandros 6 hours ago



                      Thank you for your interest in this question.
                      Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



                      Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?



                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Human spaceflight

                      Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

                      張江高科駅