How, and why, science and health researchers read scientific (IMRAD) papers
Copyright: © 2024 Shiely et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited..
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of our study was to determine the order in which science and health researchers read scientific papers, their reasons for doing so and the perceived difficulty and perceived importance of each section.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: An online survey open to science and health academics and researchers distributed via existing research networks, X (formerly Twitter), and LinkedIn.
RESULTS: Almost 90% of respondents self-declared to be experienced in reading research papers. 98.6% of the sample read the abstract first because it provides an overview of the paper and facilitates a decision on continuing to read on or not. Seventy-five percent perceived it to be the easiest to read and 62.4% perceived it to be very important (highest rank on a 5-point Likert scale). The majority of respondents did not read a paper in the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results And Discussion) format. Perceived difficulty and perceived importance influenced reading order.
CONCLUSION: Science and health researchers do not typically read scientific and health research papers in IMRAD format. The more important a respondent perceives a section to be, the more likely they are to read it. The easier a section is perceived, the more likely it will be read. We present recommendations to those teaching the skill of writing scientific papers and reports.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2024 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2024 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:19 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
PloS one - 19(2024), 1 vom: 22., Seite e0297034 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Shiely, Frances [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 24.01.2024 Date Revised 24.01.2024 published: Electronic-eCollection Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1371/journal.pone.0297034 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM367431483 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM367431483 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240124232107.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 240123s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1371/journal.pone.0297034 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1269.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM367431483 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)38252646 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Shiely, Frances |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a How, and why, science and health researchers read scientific (IMRAD) papers |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 24.01.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 24.01.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Electronic-eCollection | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a Copyright: © 2024 Shiely et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. | ||
| 520 | |a OBJECTIVES: The purpose of our study was to determine the order in which science and health researchers read scientific papers, their reasons for doing so and the perceived difficulty and perceived importance of each section | ||
| 520 | |a STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: An online survey open to science and health academics and researchers distributed via existing research networks, X (formerly Twitter), and LinkedIn | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: Almost 90% of respondents self-declared to be experienced in reading research papers. 98.6% of the sample read the abstract first because it provides an overview of the paper and facilitates a decision on continuing to read on or not. Seventy-five percent perceived it to be the easiest to read and 62.4% perceived it to be very important (highest rank on a 5-point Likert scale). The majority of respondents did not read a paper in the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results And Discussion) format. Perceived difficulty and perceived importance influenced reading order | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSION: Science and health researchers do not typically read scientific and health research papers in IMRAD format. The more important a respondent perceives a section to be, the more likely they are to read it. The easier a section is perceived, the more likely it will be read. We present recommendations to those teaching the skill of writing scientific papers and reports | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Gallagher, Kerrie |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Millar, Seán R |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t PloS one |d 2006 |g 19(2024), 1 vom: 22., Seite e0297034 |w (DE-627)NLM167327399 |x 1932-6203 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:19 |g year:2024 |g number:1 |g day:22 |g pages:e0297034 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297034 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 19 |j 2024 |e 1 |b 22 |h e0297034 | ||