how to read and understand a research article

• Make an Appointment
• SAGE – STEM Learning Communities
• MINT – Peer Tutoring
• Study Connect
• Request Workshop

How to read and understand a scientific paper

How to read and understand a scientific paper: a guide for non-scientists, london school of economics and political science, jennifer raff.

From vaccinations to climate change, getting science wrong has very real consequences. But journal articles, a primary way science is communicated in academia, are a different format to newspaper articles or blogs and require a level of skill and undoubtedly a greater amount of patience. Here  Jennifer Raff   has prepared a helpful guide for non-scientists on how to read a scientific paper. These steps and tips will be useful to anyone interested in the presentation of scientific findings and raise important points for scientists to consider with their own writing practice.

My post,  The truth about vaccinations: Your physician knows more than the University of Google  sparked a very lively discussion, with comments from several people trying to persuade me (and the other readers) that  their  paper disproved everything that I’d been saying. While I encourage you to go read the comments and contribute your own, here I want to focus on the much larger issue that this debate raised: what constitutes scientific authority?

It’s not just a fun academic problem. Getting the science wrong has very real consequences. For example, when a community doesn’t vaccinate children because they’re afraid of “toxins” and think that prayer (or diet, exercise, and “clean living”) is enough to prevent infection, outbreaks happen.

“Be skeptical. But when you get proof, accept proof.” –Michael Specter

What constitutes enough proof? Obviously everyone has a different answer to that question. But to form a truly educated opinion on a scientific subject, you need to become familiar with current research in that field. And to do that, you have to read the “primary research literature” (often just called “the literature”). You might have tried to read scientific papers before and been frustrated by the dense, stilted writing and the unfamiliar jargon. I remember feeling this way!  Reading and understanding research papers is a skill which every single doctor and scientist has had to learn during graduate school.  You can learn it too, but like any skill it takes patience and practice.

I want to help people become more scientifically literate, so I wrote this guide for how a layperson can approach reading and understanding a scientific research paper. It’s appropriate for someone who has no background whatsoever in science or medicine, and based on the assumption that he or she is doing this for the purpose of getting a  basic  understanding of a paper and deciding whether or not it’s a reputable study.

The type of scientific paper I’m discussing here is referred to as a  primary research article . It’s a peer-reviewed report of new research on a specific question (or questions). Another useful type of publication is a  review article . Review articles are also peer-reviewed, and don’t present new information, but summarize multiple primary research articles, to give a sense of the consensus, debates, and unanswered questions within a field.  (I’m not going to say much more about them here, but be cautious about which review articles you read. Remember that they are only a snapshot of the research at the time they are published.  A review article on, say, genome-wide association studies from 2001 is not going to be very informative in 2013. So much research has been done in the intervening years that the field has changed considerably).

Before you begin: some general advice

Reading a scientific paper is a completely different process than reading an article about science in a blog or newspaper. Not only do you read the sections in a different order than they’re presented, but you also have to take notes, read it multiple times, and probably go look up other papers for some of the details. Reading a single paper may take you a very long time at first. Be patient with yourself. The process will go much faster as you gain experience.

Most primary research papers will be divided into the following sections: Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, and Conclusions/Interpretations/Discussion. The order will depend on which journal it’s published in. Some journals have additional files (called Supplementary Online Information) which contain important details of the research, but are published online instead of in the article itself (make sure you don’t skip these files).

Before you begin reading, take note of the authors and their institutional affiliations. Some institutions (e.g. University of Texas) are well-respected; others (e.g.  the Discovery Institute ) may appear to be legitimate research institutions but are actually agenda-driven.  Tip:  g oogle  “Discovery Institute” to see why you don’t want to use it as a scientific authority on evolutionary theory.

Also take note of the journal in which it’s published. Reputable (biomedical) journals will be indexed by  Pubmed . [EDIT: Several people have reminded me that non-biomedical journals won’t be on Pubmed, and they’re absolutely correct! (thanks for catching that, I apologize for being sloppy here). Check out  Web of Science  for a more complete index of science journals. And please feel free to share other resources in the comments!]  Beware of  questionable journals .

As you read, write down  every single word  that you don’t understand. You’re going to have to look them all up (yes, every one. I know it’s a total pain. But you won’t understand the paper if you don’t understand the vocabulary. Scientific words have extremely precise meanings).

Step-by-step instructions for reading a primary research article

1. Begin by reading the introduction, not the abstract.

The abstract is that dense first paragraph at the very beginning of a paper. In fact, that’s often the only part of a paper that many non-scientists read when they’re trying to build a scientific argument. (This is a terrible practice—don’t do it.).  When I’m choosing papers to read, I decide what’s relevant to my interests based on a combination of the title and abstract. But when I’ve got a collection of papers assembled for deep reading, I always read the abstract last. I do this because abstracts contain a succinct summary of the entire paper, and I’m concerned about inadvertently becoming biased by the authors’ interpretation of the results.

2. Identify the BIG QUESTION.

Not “What is this paper about”, but “What problem is this entire field trying to solve?”

This helps you focus on why this research is being done.  Look closely for evidence of agenda-motivated research.

3. Summarize the background in five sentences or less.

Here are some questions to guide you:

What work has been done before in this field to answer the BIG QUESTION? What are the limitations of that work? What, according to the authors, needs to be done next?

The five sentences part is a little arbitrary, but it forces you to be concise and really think about the context of this research. You need to be able to explain why this research has been done in order to understand it.

4.   Identify the SPECIFIC QUESTION(S)

What  exactly  are the authors trying to answer with their research? There may be multiple questions, or just one. Write them down.  If it’s the kind of research that tests one or more null hypotheses, identify it/them.

Not sure what a null hypothesis is? Go read this one  and try to identify the null hypotheses in it. Keep in mind that not every paper will test a null hypothesis.

5. Identify the approach

What are the authors going to do to answer the SPECIFIC QUESTION(S)?

6. Now read the methods section. Draw a diagram for each experiment, showing exactly what the authors did.

I mean  literally  draw it. Include as much detail as you need to fully understand the work.  As an example, here is what I drew to sort out the methods for a paper I read today ( Battaglia et al. 2013: “The first peopling of South America: New evidence from Y-chromosome haplogroup Q” ). This is much less detail than you’d probably need, because it’s a paper in my specialty and I use these methods all the time.  But if you were reading this, and didn’t happen to know what “process data with reduced-median method using Network” means, you’d need to look that up.

Image credit: author

You don’t need to understand the methods in enough detail to replicate the experiment—that’s something reviewers have to do—but you’re not ready to move on to the results until you can explain the basics of the methods to someone else.

7.   Read the results section. Write one or more paragraphs to summarize the results for each experiment, each figure, and each table. Don’t yet try to decide what the results  mean , just write down what they  are.

You’ll find that, particularly in good papers, the majority of the results are summarized in the figures and tables. Pay careful attention to them!  You may also need to go to the Supplementary Online Information file to find some of the results.

 It is at this point where difficulties can arise if statistical tests are employed in the paper and you don’t have enough of a background to understand them. I can’t teach you stats in this post, but  here , and here   are some basic resources to help you.  I STRONGLY advise you to become familiar with them.

Things to pay attention to in the results section:

• Any time the words “significant” or “non-significant” are used. These have precise statistical meanings. Read more about this  here .
• If there are graphs, do they have  error bars  on them? For certain types of studies, a lack of confidence intervals is a major red flag.
• The sample size. Has the study been conducted on 10, or 10,000 people? (For some research purposes, a sample size of 10 is sufficient, but for most studies larger is better).

8. Do the results answer the SPECIFIC QUESTION(S)? What do you think they mean?

Don’t move on until you have thought about this. It’s okay to change your mind in light of the authors’ interpretation—in fact you probably will if you’re still a beginner at this kind of analysis—but it’s a really good habit to start forming your own interpretations before you read those of others.

9. Read the conclusion/discussion/Interpretation section.

What do the authors think the results mean? Do you agree with them? Can you come up with any alternative way of interpreting them? Do the authors identify any weaknesses in their own study? Do you see any that the authors missed? (Don’t assume they’re infallible!) What do they propose to do as a next step? Do you agree with that?

10. Now, go back to the beginning and read the abstract.

Does it match what the authors said in the paper? Does it fit with your interpretation of the paper?

11. FINAL STEP:  (Don’t neglect doing this)  What do other researchers say about this paper?

Who are the (acknowledged or self-proclaimed) experts in this particular field? Do they have criticisms of the study that you haven’t thought of, or do they generally support it?

Here’s a place where I do recommend you use google! But do it last, so you are better prepared to think critically about what other people say.

(12. This step may be optional for you, depending on why you’re reading a particular paper. But for me, it’s critical! I go through the “Literature cited” section to see what other papers the authors cited. This allows me to better identify the important papers in a particular field, see if the authors cited my own papers (KIDDING!….mostly), and find sources of useful ideas or techniques.)

UPDATE: If you would like to see an example of how to read a science paper using this framework, you can find one  here .

I gratefully acknowledge Professors José Bonner and Bill Saxton for teaching me how to critically read and analyze scientific papers using this method. I’m honored to have the chance to pass along what they taught me.

I’ve written a shorter version of this guide for teachers to hand out to their classes. If you’d like a PDF, shoot me an email: jenniferraff (at) utexas (dot) edu. For further comments and additional questions on this guide, please see the Comments Section on  the original post .

This piece originally appeared on the  author’s personal blog  and is reposted with permission.

Featured image credit:  Scientists in a laboratory of the University of La Rioja  by  Urcomunicacion  (Wikimedia CC BY3.0)

Note: This article gives the views of the authors, and not the position of the LSE Impact blog, nor of the London School of Economics. Please review our  Comments Policy  if you have any concerns on posting a comment below.

Jennifer Raff (Indiana University—dual Ph.D. in genetics and bioanthropology) is an assistant professor in the Department of Anthropology, University of Kansas, director and Principal Investigator of the KU Laboratory of Human Population Genomics, and assistant director of KU’s Laboratory of Biological Anthropology. She is also a research affiliate with the University of Texas anthropological genetics laboratory. She is keenly interested in public outreach and scientific literacy, writing about topics in science and pseudoscience for her blog ( violentmetaphors.com ), the Huffington Post, and for the  Social Evolution Forum .

• Learning Consultations
• MINT Peer Tutoring
• SAGE Learning Communities
• Getting Started
• Peer Education Courses
• Become a Peer Educator
• ADHD/LD Support
• Workshops & Outreach
• Learning Strategies
• Manage Time
• All Resources
• For Faculty & Staff

• University of Michigan Library
• Research Guides

The Library Research Process, Step-by-Step

• Reading Scholarly Articles
• Finding & Exploring a Topic
• Finding Books
• Finding Articles
• Evaluating Sources
• Understanding & Using a Citation Style

Reading Scholarly Articles: Step-by-Step

1. Read the Abstract Section

The first step in reading a scholarly article is to read the abstract or summary of the article. Abstracts are always found at the beginning of an article and provide a basic summary or roadmap to the article. The abstract also introduces the purpose of the article.

Take a few minutes to carefully read the abstract of the practice article. Note that the abstract is not formally labeled "abstract" but is called "background and aims." Any summary at the start of an article is considered the abstract.

The abstract should always be read first to make sure the article is relevant to your topic. However, reading the abstract should never replace reading the entire article as the abstract is too brief to be used to fully understand the article.

2. Read the Conclusion Section Reading the conclusion will help you understand the main points of the article and what the authors are attempting to prove. 

3. Read the Introduction Section Now that you have an overview of the article from the abstract and understand the main points the authors are trying to prove from the conclusion, you will want to read the introduction.

4. Read the Results Section

Read the results section. Here are a couple of suggestions for deciphering results:

• If you are a visual learner, the charts may make sense to you.
• If charts are difficult to understand, look over the narrative and then return to the charts.
• Using the charts can help enhance your understanding of the narrative
• Look for works like "important" or "significant" and make special note of these phrases as these usually are signals from the author of an important result.

5. Read the Methods Section Reading the methods section will help you understand how the study or experiment was conducted. It is necessary for other researchers to understand the methods used so that they can replicate the study.

The methods section can also be difficult to read due to technical language used and density of the section. Try circling words, acronyms, and surveys you are unfamiliar with and look them up as those may be important to fully understand the article and may be necessary for future research. 

6. Read the Discussion & Limitations Section

The discussion section is where you will find the researcher's interpretation of the results. The author should answer the article's research question. Remember, you should evaluate the data to form your own conclusions. Don't just accept the author's conclusions without looking at the data for yourself.

Often authors will include a section detailing the limits to their research and their conclusions. The limitation section will usually explain conclusions that could not be drawn from the research as well as areas that future research is needed.

7. Read Through One More Time  After you have jumped around and read the different sections of the article, go back to the beginning and read the article in order. The article should be easier to read and make more sense as you will already be familiar with the main points in each section.

Watch: How to Read a Scholarly Article

Why Watch This Video? You'll learn essential strategies for reading scientific or scholarly journal articles, including:

• Identifying distinct sections (abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion) and the purpose of those sections 
• How to effectively skim content using the ADIRM process (Abstract, Discussion, Introduction, Results, Methods), which will help you assess scholarly articles' relevance and validity
• Distinguishing between main points and less relevant sub points within scholarly research articles. 
• Learning about and applying these techniques will save you time and effort when working through your course assignments.

Evaluating Information

• Understanding Primary and Secondary Sources
• Exploring and Evaluating Popular, Trade, and Scholarly Sources

Reading a Scholarly Article

Common components of original research articles, while you read, reading strategies, reading for citations, further reading, learning objectives.

This page was created to help you:

Identify the different parts of a scholarly article

Efficiently analyze and evaluate scholarly articles for usefulness

This page will focus on reading scholarly articles — published reports on original research in the social sciences, humanities, and STEM fields. Reading and understanding this type of article can be challenging. This guide will help you develop these skills, which can be learned and improved upon with practice.

We will go over:

There are many different types of articles that may be found in scholarly journals and other academic publications. For more, see:

• Types of Information Sources

Reading a scholarly article isn’t like reading a novel, website, or newspaper article. It’s likely you won’t read and absorb it from beginning to end, all at once.

Instead, think of scholarly reading as inquiry, i.e., asking a series of questions as you do your research or read for class. Your reading should be guided by your class topic or your own research question or thesis.

For example, as you read, you might ask yourself:

• What questions does it help to answer, or what topics does it address?
• Are these relevant or useful to me?
• Does the article offer a helpful framework for understanding my topic or question (theoretical framework)?
• Do the authors use interesting or innovative methods to conduct their research that might be relevant to me?
• Does the article contain references I might consult for further information?

In Practice

Scanning and skimming are essential when reading scholarly articles, especially at the beginning stages of your research or when you have a lot of material in front of you.

Many scholarly articles are organized to help you scan and skim efficiently. The next time you need to read an article, practice scanning the following sections (where available) and skim their contents:

• The abstract: This summary provides a birds’ eye view of the article contents.
• The introduction:  What is the topic(s) of the research article? What is its main idea or question?
• The list of keywords or descriptors
• Methods: How did the author(s) go about answering their question/collecting their data?
• Section headings:  Stop and skim those sections you may find relevant.
• Figures:  Offer lots of information in quick visual format.
• The conclusion:  What are the findings and/or conclusions of this article?

Mark Up Your Text

Read with purpose.

• Scanning and skimming with a pen in hand can help to focus your reading.
• Use color for quick reference. Try highlighters or some sticky notes. Use different colors to represent different topics.
• Write in the margins, putting down thoughts and questions about the content as you read.
• Use digital markup features available in eBook platforms or third-party solutions, like Adobe Reader or Hypothes.is.

Categorize Information

Create your own informal system of organization. It doesn’t have to be complicated — start basic, and be sure it works for you.

• Jot down a few of your own keywords for each article. These keywords may correspond with important topics being addressed in class or in your research paper.  
• Write keywords on print copies or use the built-in note taking features in reference management tools like Zotero and EndNote.  
• Your keywords and system of organization may grow more complex the deeper you get into your reading.

Highlight words, terms, phrases, acronyms, etc. that are unfamiliar to you. You can highlight on the text or make a list in a notetaking program.

• Decide if the term is essential to your understanding of the article or if you can look it up later and keep scanning.

You may scan an article and discover that it isn’t what you thought it was about. Before you close the tab or delete that PDF, consider scanning the article one more time, specifically to look for citations that might be more on-target for your topic.  

You don’t need to look at every citation in the bibliography — you can look to the literature review to identify the core references that relate to your topic. Literature reviews are typically organized by subtopic within a research question or thesis. Find the paragraph or two that are closely aligned with your topic, make note of the author names, then locate those citations in the bibliography or footnote.

See the Find Articles page for what to do next:

• Find Articles

See the Citation Searching page for more on following a citation trail:

• Citation Searching
• Taking notes effectively. [blog post] Raul Pacheco-Vega, PhD
• How to read an academic paper. [video] UBCiSchool. 2013
• How to (seriously) read a scientific paper. (2016, March 21). Science | AAAS.
• How to read a paper. S. Keshav. 2007. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 37, 3 (July 2007), 83–84.

This guide was designed to help you:

• << Previous: Exploring and Evaluating Popular, Trade, and Scholarly Sources
• Last Updated: Feb 16, 2024 3:55 PM
• URL: https://libguides.brown.edu/evaluate

Brown University Library  |  Providence, RI 02912  |  (401) 863-2165  |  Contact  |  Comments  |  Library Feedback  |  Site Map

Library Intranet

info This is a space for the teal alert bar.

notifications This is a space for the yellow alert bar.

Research Process

• Brainstorming
• Explore Google This link opens in a new window
• Explore Web Resources
• Explore Background Information
• Explore Books
• Explore Scholarly Articles
• Narrowing a Topic
• Primary and Secondary Resources
• Academic, Popular & Trade Publications
• Scholarly and Peer-Reviewed Journals
• Grey Literature
• Clinical Trials
• Evidence Based Treatment
• Scholarly Research
• Database Research Log
• Search Limits
• Keyword Searching
• Boolean Operators
• Phrase Searching
• Truncation & Wildcard Symbols
• Proximity Searching
• Field Codes
• Subject Terms and Database Thesauri

Reading a Scientific Article

• Website Evaluation
• Article Keywords and Subject Terms
• Cited References
• Citing Articles
• Related Results
• Search Within Publication
• Database Alerts & RSS Feeds
• Personal Database Accounts
• Persistent URLs
• Literature Gap and Future Research
• Web of Knowledge
• Annual Reviews
• Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses
• Finding Seminal Works
• Exhausting the Literature
• Finding Dissertations
• Researching Theoretical Frameworks
• Research Methodology & Design
• Tests and Measurements
• Organizing Research & Citations This link opens in a new window
• Picking Where to Publish
• Bibliometrics
• Learn the Library This link opens in a new window

Library Tutorial

• Reading a Scholarly Article Tutorial This interactive tutorial provides practice reading a scholarly or scientific article.

Additional Resources

• Anatomy of a Scholarly Article
• How to Read (and Understand) a Social Science Journal Article
• How to Read a Scientific Paper
• How to Read a Scientific Paper Interactive Tutorial
• How to Read Scientific Literature (YouTube Video)
• How to read and understand a scientific paper: a guide for non-scientists See it in action - How to read a vaccine safety study: an example

General Dictionaries

• The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
• The American Heritage Student Science Dictionary
• The Chambers Dictionary
• Dictionary.com
• The Free Dictionary
• Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary
• Merriam-Webster Online
• The Penguin English Dictionary
• The Science Dictionary

Attempting to read a scientific or scholarly research article for the first time may seem overwhelming and confusing. This guide details how to read a scientific article step-by-step. First, you should not approach a scientific article like a textbook— reading from beginning to end of the chapter or book without pause for reflection or criticism. Additionally, it is highly recommended that you highlight and take notes as you move through the article. Taking notes will keep you focused on the task at hand and help you work towards comprehension of the entire article.

• Skim the article. This should only take you a few minutes. You are not trying to comprehend the entire article at this point, but just get a basic overview. You don’t have to read in order; the discussion/conclusions will help you to determine if the article is relevant to your research. You might then continue on to the Introduction. Pay attention to the structure of the article, headings, and figures.  
• Grasp the vocabulary. Begin to go through the article and highlight words and phrases you do not understand. Some words or phrases you may be able to get an understanding from the context in which it is used, but for others you may need the assistance of a medical or scientific dictionary. Subject-specific dictionaries available through our Library databases and online are listed below.  
• The abstract gives a quick overview of the article. It will usually contain four pieces of information: purpose or rationale of study (why they did it); methodology (how they did it); results (what they found); conclusion (what it means). Begin by reading the abstract to make sure this is what you are looking for and that it will be worth your time and effort.   
• The introduction gives background information about the topic and sets out specific questions to be addressed by the authors. You can skim through the introduction if you are already familiar with the paper’s topic.  
• The methods section gives technical details of how the experiments were carried out and serves as a “how-to” manual if you wanted to replicate the same experiments as the authors. This is another section you may want to only skim unless you wish to identify the methods used by the researchers or if you intend to replicate the research yourself.  
• The results are the meat of the scientific article and contain all of the data from the experiments. You should spend time looking at all the graphs, pictures, and tables as these figures will contain most of the data.  
• Lastly, the discussion is the authors’ opportunity to give their opinions. Keep in mind that the discussions are the authors’ interpretations and not necessarily facts. It is still a good place for you to get ideas about what kind of research questions are still unanswered in the field and what types of questions you might want your own research project to tackle. (See the Future Research Section of the Research Process for more information).  
•   Read the bibliography/references section. Reading the references or works cited may lead you to other useful resources. You might also get a better understanding of the basic terminology, main concepts, major researchers, and basic terminology in the area you are researching.  
• Have I taken time to understand all the terminology?
• Am I spending too much time on the less important parts of this article?
• Do I have any reason to question the credibility of this research?
• What specific problem does the research address and why is it important?
• How do these results relate to my research interests or to other works which I have read?  
• Read the article a second time in chronological order. Reading the article a second time will reinforce your overall understanding. You may even start to make connections to other articles that you have read on this topic.

Reading a Scholarly Article & Finding Definitions Webinar

This webinar presents effective techniques for reading and understanding a scholarly article, as well as locating definitions related to your research topic.

Subject-Specific Dictionaries

• Health Sciences
• Marriage & Family Science
• Research Methods
• Social Work

Was this resource helpful?

• << Previous: Subject Terms and Database Thesauri
• Next: Evaluating Information >>
• Last Updated: Aug 12, 2024 7:35 AM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/researchprocess

© Copyright 2024 National University. All Rights Reserved.

Privacy Policy | Consumer Information

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Oral Maxillofac Pathol
• v.17(1); Jan-Apr 2013

Art of reading a journal article: Methodically and effectively

Rv subramanyam.

Department of Oral Pathology, Drs Sudha and Nageswara Rao Siddhartha Institute of Dental Sciences, Gannavaram, Andhra Pradesh, India

Background:

Reading scientific literature is mandatory for researchers and clinicians. With an overflow of medical and dental journals, it is essential to develop a method to choose and read the right articles.

To outline a logical and orderly approach to reading a scientific manuscript. By breaking down the task into smaller, step-by-step components, one should be able to attain the skills to read a scientific article with ease.

The reader should begin by reading the title, abstract and conclusions first. If a decision is made to read the entire article, the key elements of the article can be perused in a systematic manner effectively and efficiently. A cogent and organized method is presented to read articles published in scientific journals.

Conclusion:

One can read and appreciate a scientific manuscript if a systematic approach is followed in a simple and logical manner.

INTRODUCTION

“ We are drowning in information but starved for knowledge .” John Naisbitt

It has become essential for the clinicians, researchers, and students to read articles from scientific journals. This is not only to keep abreast of progress in the speciality concerned but also to be aware of current trends in providing optimum healthcare to the patients. Reading scientific literature is a must for students interested in research, for choosing their topics and carrying out their experiments. Scientific literature in that field will help one understand what has already been discovered and what questions remain unanswered and thus help in designing one's research project. Sackett (1981)[ 1 ] and Durbin (2009)[ 2 ] suggested various reasons why most of us read journal articles and some of these are listed in Table 1 .

Common reasons for reading journal articles

The scientific literature is burgeoning at an exponential rate. Between 1978 and 1985, nearly 272,344 articles were published annually and listed in Medline. Between 1986 and 1993, this number reached 344,303 articles per year, and between 1994 and 2001, the figure has grown to 398,778 articles per year.[ 3 ] To be updated with current knowledge, a physician practicing general medicine has to read 17 articles a day, 365 days a year.[ 4 ]

In spite of the internet rapidly gaining a strong foothold as a quick source of obtaining information, reading journal articles, whether from print or electronic media, still remains the most common way of acquiring new information for most of us.[ 2 ] Newspaper reports or novels can be read in an insouciant manner, but reading research reports and scientific articles requires concentration and meticulous approach. At present, there are 1312 dentistry journals listed in Pubmed.[ 5 ] How can one choose an article, read it purposefully, effectively, and systematically? The aim of this article is to provide an answer to this question by presenting an efficient and methodical approach to a scientific manuscript. However, the reader is informed that this paper is mainly intended for the amateur reader unaccustomed to scientific literature and not for the professional interested in critical appraisal of journal articles.

TYPES OF JOURNAL ARTICLES

Different types of papers are published in medical and dental journals. One should be aware of each kind; especially, when one is looking for a specific type of an article. Table 2 gives different categories of papers published in journals.

Types of articles published in a journal

In general, scientific literature can be primary or secondary. Reports of original research form the “primary literature”, the “core” of scientific publications. These are the articles written to present findings on new scientific discoveries or describe earlier work to acknowledge it and place new findings in the proper perspective. “Secondary literature” includes review articles, books, editorials, practice guidelines, and other forms of publication in which original research information is reviewed.[ 6 ] An article published in a peer-reviewed journal is more valued than one which is not.

An original research article should consist of the following headings: Structured abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) and may be Randomized Control Trial (RCT), Controlled Clinical Trial (CCT), Experiment, Survey, and Case-control or Cohort study. Reviews could be non-systematic (narrative) or systematic. A narrative review is a broad overview of a topic without any specific question, more or less an update, and qualitative summary. On the other hand, a systematic review typically addresses a specific question about a topic, details the methods by which papers were identified in the literature, uses predetermined criteria for selection of papers to be included in the review, and qualitatively evaluates them. A meta-analysis is a type of systematic review in which numeric results of several separate studies are statistically combined to determine the outcome of a specific research question.[ 7 – 9 ] Some are invited reviews, requested by the Editor, from an expert in a particular field of study.

A case study is a report of a single clinical case, whereas, a case series is a description of a number of such cases. Case reports and case series are description of disease (s) generally considered rare or report of heretofore unknown or unusual findings in a well-recognized condition, unique procedure, imaging technique, diagnostic test, or treatment method. Technical notes are description of new, innovative techniques, or modifications to existing procedures. A pictorial essay is a teaching article with images and legends but has limited text. Commentary is a short article on an author's personal opinion of a specific topic and could be controversial. An editorial, written by the editor of the journal or invited, can be perspective (about articles published in that particular issue) or persuasive (arguing a specific point of view). Other articles published in a journal include letters to the editor, book reviews, conference proceedings and abstracts, and abstracts from other journals.[ 10 ]

WHAT TO READ IN A JOURNAL? – CHOOSING THE RIGHT ARTICLE

Not all research articles published are excellent, and it is pragmatic to decide if the quality of the study warrants reading of the manuscript. The first step for a reader is to choose a right article for reading, depending on one's individual requirement. The next step is to read the selected article methodically and efficiently.[ 2 ] A simple decision-making flowchart is depicted in [ Figure 1 ], which helps one to decide the type of article to select. This flowchart is meant for one who has a specific intent of choosing a particular type of article and not for one who intends to browse through a journal.

Schematic flowchart of the first step in choosing an article to read

HOW TO START READING AN ARTICLE?

“ There is an art of reading, as well as an art of thinking, and an art of writing .” Clarence Day

At first glance, a journal article might appear intimidating for some or confusing for others with its tables and graphs. Reading a research article can be a frustrating experience, especially for the one who has not mastered the art of reading scientific literature. Just like there is a method to extract a tooth or prepare a cavity, one can also learn to read research articles by following a systematic approach. Most scientific articles are organized as follows:[ 2 , 11 ]

• Title: Topic and information about the authors.
• Abstract: Brief overview of the article.
• Introduction: Background information and statement of the research hypothesis.
• Methods: Details of how the study was conducted, procedures followed, instruments used and variables measured.
• Results: All the data of the study along with figures, tables and/or graphs.
• Discussion: The interpretation of the results and implications of the study.
• References/Bibliography: Citations of sources from where the information was obtained.

Review articles do not usually follow the above pattern, unless they are systematic reviews or meta-analysis. The cardinal rule is: Never start reading an article from the beginning to the end. It is better to begin by identifying the conclusions of the study by reading the title and the abstract.[ 12 ] If the article does not have an abstract, read the conclusions or the summary at the end of the article first. After reading the abstract or conclusions, if the reader deems it is interesting or useful, then the entire article can be read [ Figure 2 ].

Decision-making flowchart to decide whether to read the chosen article or not

Like the title of a movie which attracts a filmgoer, the title of the article is the one which attracts a reader in the first place. A good title will inform the potential reader a great deal about the study to decide whether to go ahead with the paper or dismiss it. Most readers prefer titles that are descriptive and self-explanatory without having to look at the entire article to know what it is all about.[ 2 ] For example, the paper entitled “Microwave processing – A blessing for pathologists” gives an idea about the article in general to the reader. But there is no indication in the title whether it is a review article on microwave processing or an original research. If the title had been “Comparison of Microwave with Conventional Tissue Processing on quality of histological sections”, even the insouciant reader would have a better understanding of the content of the paper.

Abstract helps us determine whether we should read the entire article or not. In fact, most journals provide abstract free of cost online allowing us to decide whether we need to purchase the entire article. Most scientific journals now have a structured abstract with separate subheadings like introduction (background or hypothesis), methods, results and conclusions making it easy for a reader to identify important parts of the study quickly.[ 13 ] Moreover, there is usually a restriction about the number of words that can be included in an abstract. This makes the abstract concise enough for one to read rapidly.

The abstract can be read in a systematic way by answering certain fundamental questions like what was the study about, why and how was the study conducted, the results and their inferences. The reader should make a note of any questions that were raised while reading the abstract and be sure that answers have been found after reading the entire article.[ 12 ]

Reading the entire article

Once the reader has decided to read the entire article, one can begin with the introduction.

The purpose of the introduction is to provide the rationale for conducting the study. This section usually starts with existing knowledge and previous research of the topic under consideration. Typically, this section concludes with identification of gaps in the literature and how these gaps stimulated the researcher to design a new study.[ 12 ] A good introduction should provide proper background for the study. The aims and objectives are usually mentioned at the end of the introduction. The reader should also determine whether a research hypothesis (study hypothesis) was stated and later check whether it was answered under the discussion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This section gives the technical details of how the experiments were carried out. In most of the research articles, all details are rarely included but there should be enough information to understand how the study was carried out.[ 12 ] Information about the number of subjects included in the study and their categorization, sampling methods, the inclusion criteria (who can be in) and exclusion criteria (who cannot be in) and the variables chosen can be derived by reading this section. The reader should get acquainted with the procedures and equipment used for data collection and find out whether they were appropriate.

RESULTS OF THE STUDY

In this section, the researchers give details about the data collected, either in the form of figures, tables and/or graphs. Ideally, interpretation of data should not be reported in this section, though statistical analyses are presented. The reader should meticulously go through this segment of the manuscript and find out whether the results were reliable (same results over time) and valid (measure what it is supposed to measure). An important aspect is to check if all the subjects present in the beginning of the study were accounted for at the end of the study. If the answer is no, the reader should check whether any explanation was provided.

Results that were statistically significant and results that were not, must be identified. One should also observe whether a correct statistical test was employed for analysis and was the level of significance appropriate for the study. To appreciate the choice of a statistical test, one requires an understanding of the hypothesis being tested.[ 14 , 15 ] Table 3 provides a list of commonly used statistical tests used in scientific publications. Description and interpretation of these tests is beyond the scope of this paper. It is wise to remember the following advice: It is not only important to know whether a difference or association is statistically significant but also appreciate whether it is large or substantial enough to be useful clinically.[ 16 ] In other words, what is statistically significant may not be clinically significant.

Basic statistics commonly used in scientific publications

This is the most important section of the article where the research questions are answered and the meaning of analysis and interpretation of the data are presented. Usually the study results are compared with other studies, explaining in what aspects they were different or similar. Ideally, no new data should be presented under discussion and no information from other sections should be repeated.[ 2 ] In addition, this section also discusses the various strengths and limitations/shortcomings of the study, providing suggestions about areas that need additional research.

The meaning of results and their analyses, new theories or hypotheses, limitations of the study, explanation of differences and similarities with other comparable studies, and suggestions for future research are offered in this section. It is important to remember that the discussions are the authors’ interpretations and opinions and not necessarily facts.

READING THE CONCLUSION (AGAIN !)

Though conclusion part had been read at the beginning, it is prudent to read it again at the end to confirm whether what we had inferred initially is correct. If the conclusion had not made sense earlier, it may make sense after having perused through the entire article. Sometimes, the study conclusions are included in the discussion section and may not be easy to locate. The questions that can be asked under various sub-headings of an original research paper are presented as a simple questionnaire in Table 4 . It is assumed that one who is using this questionnaire has read and analyzed the abstract and then decided to read the entire article. This questionnaire does not critically analyze a scientific article. However, answers to these questions provide a systematic approach to obtain a broad overview of the manuscript, especially to a novice. If one who is new to reading articles, writing answers to these questions and taking notes will help in understanding most aspects of a research article.

Questionnaire for original research articles

“ Let us read with method, and propose to ourselves an end to which our studies may point. The use of reading is to aid us in thinking .” Edward Gibbon

It has become mandatory to read scientific literature to be well-informed of ever-expanding information and/or for better diagnosis, prognosis and therapy. Since there is an abundance of journals and articles, it is critical to develop a modus operandi for achieving a rapid, purposeful, effective and useful method to read these manuscripts. A simple but efficient and logical approach to scientific literature has been presented here for choosing articles and reading them systematically and effectively for a better understanding.

Source of Support: Nil.

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• Reading Research Effectively
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

Reading a Scholarly Article or Research Paper

Identifying a research problem to investigate requires a preliminary search for and critical review of the literature in order to gain an understanding about how scholars have examined a topic. Scholars rarely structure research studies in a way that can be followed like a story; they are complex and detail-intensive and often written in a descriptive and conclusive narrative form. However, in the social and behavioral sciences, journal articles and stand-alone research reports are generally organized in a consistent format that makes it easier to compare and contrast studies and to interpret their contents.

General Reading Strategies

W hen you first read an article or research paper, focus on asking specific questions about each section. This strategy can help with overall comprehension and with understanding how the content relates [or does not relate] to the problem you want to investigate. As you review more and more studies, the process of understanding and critically evaluating the research will become easier because the content of what you review will begin to coalescence around common themes and patterns of analysis. Below are recommendations on how to read each section of a research paper effectively. Note that the sections to read are out of order from how you will find them organized in a journal article or research paper.

1.  Abstract

The abstract summarizes the background, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions of a scholarly article or research paper. Use the abstract to filter out sources that may have appeared useful when you began searching for information but, in reality, are not relevant. Questions to consider when reading the abstract are:

• Is this study related to my question or area of research?
• What is this study about and why is it being done ?
• What is the working hypothesis or underlying thesis?
• What is the primary finding of the study?
• Are there words or terminology that I can use to either narrow or broaden the parameters of my search for more information?

2.  Introduction

If, after reading the abstract, you believe the paper may be useful, focus on examining the research problem and identifying the questions the author is trying to address. This information is usually located within the first few paragraphs of the introduction or in the concluding paragraph. Look for information about how and in what way this relates to what you are investigating. In addition to the research problem, the introduction should provide the main argument and theoretical framework of the study and, in the last paragraphs of the introduction, describe what the author(s) intend to accomplish. Questions to consider when reading the introduction include:

• What is this study trying to prove or disprove?
• What is the author(s) trying to test or demonstrate?
• What do we already know about this topic and what gaps does this study try to fill or contribute a new understanding to the research problem?
• Why should I care about what is being investigated?
• Will this study tell me anything new related to the research problem I am investigating?

3.  Literature Review

The literature review describes and critically evaluates what is already known about a topic. Read the literature review to obtain a big picture perspective about how the topic has been studied and to begin the process of seeing where your potential study fits within the domain of prior research. Questions to consider when reading the literature review include:

• W hat other research has been conducted about this topic and what are the main themes that have emerged?
• What does prior research reveal about what is already known about the topic and what remains to be discovered?
• What have been the most important past findings about the research problem?
• How has prior research led the author(s) to conduct this particular study?
• Is there any prior research that is unique or groundbreaking?
• Are there any studies I could use as a model for designing and organizing my own study?

4.  Discussion/Conclusion

The discussion and conclusion are usually the last two sections of text in a scholarly article or research report. They reveal how the author(s) interpreted the findings of their research and presented recommendations or courses of action based on those findings. Often in the conclusion, the author(s) highlight recommendations for further research that can be used to develop your own study. Questions to consider when reading the discussion and conclusion sections include:

• What is the overall meaning of the study and why is this important? [i.e., how have the author(s) addressed the " So What? " question].
• What do you find to be the most important ways that the findings have been interpreted?
• What are the weaknesses in their argument?
• Do you believe conclusions about the significance of the study and its findings are valid?
• What limitations of the study do the author(s) describe and how might this help formulate my own research?
• Does the conclusion contain any recommendations for future research?

5.  Methods/Methodology

The methods section describes the materials, techniques, and procedures for gathering information used to examine the research problem. If what you have read so far closely supports your understanding of the topic, then move on to examining how the author(s) gathered information during the research process. Questions to consider when reading the methods section include:

• Did the study use qualitative [based on interviews, observations, content analysis], quantitative [based on statistical analysis], or a mixed-methods approach to examining the research problem?
• What was the type of information or data used?
• Could this method of analysis be repeated and can I adopt the same approach?
• Is enough information available to repeat the study or should new data be found to expand or improve understanding of the research problem?

6.  Results

After reading the above sections, you should have a clear understanding of the general findings of the study. Therefore, read the results section to identify how key findings were discussed in relation to the research problem. If any non-textual elements [e.g., graphs, charts, tables, etc.] are confusing, focus on the explanations about them in the text. Questions to consider when reading the results section include:

• W hat did the author(s) find and how did they find it?
• Does the author(s) highlight any findings as most significant?
• Are the results presented in a factual and unbiased way?
• Does the analysis of results in the discussion section agree with how the results are presented?
• Is all the data present and did the author(s) adequately address gaps?
• What conclusions do you formulate from this data and does it match with the author's conclusions?

7.  References

The references list the sources used by the author(s) to document what prior research and information was used when conducting the study. After reviewing the article or research paper, use the references to identify additional sources of information on the topic and to examine critically how these sources supported the overall research agenda. Questions to consider when reading the references include:

• Do the sources cited by the author(s) reflect a diversity of disciplinary viewpoints, i.e., are the sources all from a particular field of study or do the sources reflect multiple areas of study?
• Are there any unique or interesting sources that could be incorporated into my study?
• What other authors are respected in this field, i.e., who has multiple works cited or is cited most often by others?
• What other research should I review to clarify any remaining issues or that I need more information about?

NOTE:   A final strategy in reviewing research is to copy and paste the title of the source [journal article, book, research report] into Google Scholar . If it appears, look for a "cited by" followed by a hyperlinked number [e.g., Cited by 45]. This number indicates how many times the study has been subsequently cited in other, more recently published works. This strategy, known as citation tracking, can be an effective means of expanding your review of pertinent literature based on a study you have found useful and how scholars have cited it. The same strategies described above can be applied to reading articles you find in the list of cited by references.

Reading Tip

Specific Reading Strategies

Effectively reading scholarly research is an acquired skill that involves attention to detail and an ability to comprehend complex ideas, data, and theoretical concepts in a way that applies logically to the research problem you are investigating. Here are some specific reading strategies to consider.

As You are Reading

• Focus on information that is most relevant to the research problem; skim over the other parts.
• As noted above, read content out of order! This isn't a novel; you want to start with the spoiler to quickly assess the relevance of the study.
• Think critically about what you read and seek to build your own arguments; not everything may be entirely valid, examined effectively, or thoroughly investigated.
• Look up the definitions of unfamiliar words, concepts, or terminology. A good scholarly source is Credo Reference .

Taking notes as you read will save time when you go back to examine your sources. Here are some suggestions:

• Mark or highlight important text as you read [e.g., you can use the highlight text  feature in a PDF document]
• Take notes in the margins [e.g., Adobe Reader offers pop-up sticky notes].
• Highlight important quotations; consider using different colors to differentiate between quotes and other types of important text.
• Summarize key points about the study at the end of the paper. To save time, these can be in the form of a concise bulleted list of statements [e.g., intro has provides historical background; lit review has important sources; good conclusions].

Write down thoughts that come to mind that may help clarify your understanding of the research problem. Here are some examples of questions to ask yourself:

• Do I understand all of the terminology and key concepts?
• Do I understand the parts of this study most relevant to my topic?
• What specific problem does the research address and why is it important?
• Are there any issues or perspectives the author(s) did not consider?
• Do I have any reason to question the validity or reliability of this research?
• How do the findings relate to my research interests and to other works which I have read?

Adapted from text originally created by Holly Burt, Behavioral Sciences Librarian, USC Libraries, April 2018.

Another Reading Tip

When is it Important to Read the Entire Article or Research Paper

Laubepin argues, "Very few articles in a field are so important that every word needs to be read carefully." However, this implies that some studies are worth reading carefully. As painful and time-consuming as it may seem, there are valid reasons for reading a study from beginning to end. Here are some examples:

• Studies Published Very Recently .  The author(s) of a recent, well written study will provide a survey of the most important or impactful prior research in the literature review section. This can establish an understanding of how scholars in the past addressed the research problem. In addition, the most recently published sources will highlight what is currently known and what gaps in understanding currently exist about a topic, usually in the form of the need for further research in the conclusion .
• Surveys of the Research Problem .  Some papers provide a comprehensive analytical overview of the research problem. Reading this type of study can help you understand underlying issues and discover why scholars have chosen to investigate the topic. This is particularly important if the study was published very recently because the author(s) should cite all or most of the key prior research on the topic. Note that, if it is a long-standing problem, there may be studies that specifically review the literature to identify gaps that remain. These studies often include the word "review" in their title [e.g., Hügel, Stephan, and Anna R. Davies. "Public Participation, Engagement, and Climate Change Adaptation: A Review of the Research Literature." Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 11 (July-August 2020): https://doi.org/10.1002/ wcc.645].
• Highly Cited .  If you keep coming across the same citation to a study while you are reviewing the literature, this implies it was foundational in establishing an understanding of the research problem or the study had a significant impact within the literature [either positive or negative]. Carefully reading a highly cited source can help you understand how the topic emerged and how it motivated scholars to further investigate the problem. It also could be a study you need to cite as foundational in your own paper to demonstrate to the reader that you understand the roots of the problem.
• Historical Overview .  Knowing the historical background of a research problem may not be the focus of your analysis. Nevertheless, carefully reading a study that provides a thorough description and analysis of the history behind an event, issue, or phenomenon can add important context to understanding the topic and what aspect of the problem you may want to examine further.
• Innovative Methodological Design .  Some studies are significant and should be read in their entirety because the author(s) designed a unique or innovative approach to researching the problem. This may justify reading the entire study because it can motivate you to think creatively about pursuing an alternative or non-traditional approach to examining your topic of interest. These types of studies are generally easy to identify because they are often cited in others works because of their unique approach to investigating the research problem.
• Cross-disciplinary Approach .  R eviewing studies produced outside of your discipline is an essential component of investigating research problems in the social and behavioral sciences. Consider reading a study that was conducted by author(s) based in a different discipline [e.g., an anthropologist studying political cultures; a study of hiring practices in companies published in a sociology journal]. This approach can generate a new understanding or a unique perspective about the topic . If you are not sure how to search for studies published in a discipline outside of your major or of the course you are taking, contact a librarian for assistance.

Laubepin, Frederique. How to Read (and Understand) a Social Science Journal Article . Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ISPSR), 2013; Shon, Phillip Chong Ho. How to Read Journal Articles in the Social Sciences: A Very Practical Guide for Students . 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2015; Lockhart, Tara, and Mary Soliday. "The Critical Place of Reading in Writing Transfer (and Beyond): A Report of Student Experiences." Pedagogy 16 (2016): 23-37; Maguire, Moira, Ann Everitt Reynolds, and Brid Delahunt. "Reading to Be: The Role of Academic Reading in Emergent Academic and Professional Student Identities." Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice 17 (2020): 5-12.

• << Previous: 1. Choosing a Research Problem
• Next: Narrowing a Topic Idea >>
• Last Updated: Aug 21, 2024 8:54 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Reference management. Clean and simple.

How to read a scientific paper: a step-by-step guide

Scientific paper format

How to read a scientific paper in 3 steps, step 1: identify your motivations for reading a scientific paper, step 2: use selective reading to gain a high-level understanding of the scientific paper, step 3: read straight through to achieve a deep understanding of a scientific paper, frequently asked questions about reading a scientific paper efficiently, related articles.

A scientific paper is a complex document. Scientific papers are divided into multiple sections and frequently contain jargon and long sentences that make reading difficult. The process of reading a scientific paper to obtain information can often feel overwhelming for an early career researcher.

But the good news is that you can acquire the skill of efficiently reading a scientific paper, and you can learn how to painlessly obtain the information you need.

In this guide, we show you how to read a scientific paper step-by-step. You will learn:

• The scientific paper format
• How to identify your reasons for reading a scientific paper
• How to skim a paper
• How to achieve a deep understanding of a paper.

Using these steps for reading a scientific paper will help you:

• Obtain information efficiently
• Retain knowledge more effectively
• Allocate sufficient time to your reading task.

The steps below are the result of research into how scientists read scientific papers and our own experiences as scientists.

Firstly, how is a scientific paper structured?

The main sections are Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. In the table below, we describe the purpose of each component of a scientific paper.

Because the structured format of a scientific paper makes it easy to find the information you need, a common technique for reading a scientific paper is to cherry-pick sections and jump around the paper.

In a YouTube video, Dr. Amina Yonis shows this nonlinear practice for reading a scientific paper. She justifies her technique by stating that “By reading research papers like this, you are enabling yourself to have a disciplined approach, and it prevents yourself from drowning in the details before you even get a bird’s-eye view”.

Selective reading is a skill that can help you read faster and engage with the material presented. In his article on active vs. passive reading of scientific papers, cell biologist Tung-Tien Sun defines active reading as "reading with questions in mind" , searching for the answers, and focusing on the parts of the paper that answer your questions.

Therefore, reading a scientific paper from start to finish isn't always necessary to understand it. How you read the paper depends on what you need to learn. For example, oceanographer Ken Hughes suggests that you may read a scientific paper to gain awareness of a theory or field, or you may read to actively solve a problem in your research.

To successfully read a scientific paper, we advise using three strategies:

• Identify your motivations for reading a scientific paper
• Use selective reading to gain a high-level understanding of the scientific paper
• Read straight through to achieve a deep understanding of a scientific paper .

All 3 steps require you to think critically and have questions in mind.

Before you sit down to read a scientific paper, ask yourself these three questions:

• Why do I need to read this paper?
• What information am I looking for?
• Where in the paper am I most likely to find the information I need?

Is it background reading or a literature review for a research project you are currently working on? Are you getting into a new field of research? Do you wish to compare your results with the ones presented in the paper? Are you following an author’s work, and need to keep up-to-date on their current research? Are you keeping tabs on emerging methods in your field?

All of these intentions require a different reading approach.

For example, if you're delving into a new field of research, you'll want to read the introduction to gather background information and seminal references. The discussion section will also be important to understand the broader context of the findings.

If you aim to extend the work presented in a paper, and this study will be the starting point for your work, it's crucial to read the paper deeply.

If your focus is on the study design and techniques used by the authors, you'll spend most of your time reading and understanding the methods section.

Sometimes you'll need to read a paper to discuss it in your own research. This may be to compare or contrast your work with the paper's content, or to stimulate a discussion on future applications of your work.

If you are following an author’s work, a quick skim might suffice to understand how the paper fits into their overall research program.

Tip: Knowing why you want to read the paper facilitates how you will read the paper. Depending on your needs, your approach may take the form of a surface-level reading or a deep and thorough reading.

Knowing your motivations will guide your navigation through the paper because you have already identified which sections are most likely to contain the information you need. Approaching reading a paper in this way saves you time and makes the task less daunting.

➡️ Learn more about how to write a literature review

Begin by gaining an overview of the paper by following these simple steps:

• Read the title. What type of paper is it? Is it a journal article, a review, a methods paper, or a commentary?
• Read the abstract . The abstract is a summary of the study. What is the study about? What question was addressed? What methods were used? What did the authors find, and what are the key findings? What do the authors think are the implications of the work? Reading the abstract immediately tells you whether you should invest the time to read the paper fully.
• Look at the headings and subheadings, which describe the sections and subsections of the paper. The headings and subheadings outline the story of the paper.
• Skim the introduction. An introduction has a clear structure. The first paragraph is background information on the topic. If you are new to the field, you will read this closely, whereas an expert in that field will skim this section. The second component defines the gap in knowledge that the paper aims to address. What is unknown, and what research is needed? What problem needs to be solved? Here, you should find the questions that will be addressed by the study, and the goal of the research. The final paragraph summarizes how the authors address their research question, for example, what hypothesis will be tested, and what predictions the authors make. As you read, make a note of key references. By the end of the introduction, you should understand the goal of the research.
• Go to the results section, and study the figures and tables. These are the data—the meat of the study. Try to comprehend the data before reading the captions. After studying the data, read the captions. Do not expect to understand everything immediately. Remember, this is the result of many years of work. Make a note of what you do not understand. In your second reading, you will read more deeply.
• Skim the discussion. There are three components. The first part of the discussion summarizes what the authors have found, and what they think the implications of the work are. The second part discusses some (usually not all!) limitations of the study, and the final part is a concluding statement.
• Glance at the methods. Get a brief overview of the techniques used in the study. Depending on your reading goals, you may spend a lot of time on this section in subsequent readings, or a cursory reading may be sufficient.
• Summarize what the paper is about—its key take-home message—in a sentence or two. Ask yourself if you have got the information you need.
• List any terminology you may need to look up before reading the paper again.
• Scan the reference list. Make a note of papers you may need to read for background information before delving further into the paper.

Congratulations, you have completed the first reading! You now have gained a high-level perspective of the study, which will be enough for many research purposes.

Now that you have an overview of the work and you have identified what information you want to obtain, you are ready to understand the paper on a deeper level. Deep understanding is achieved in the second and subsequent readings with note-taking and active reflection. Here is a step-by-step guide.

• Active engagement with the material
• Critical thinking
• Creative thinking
• Synthesis of information
• Consolidation of information into memory.

Highlighting sentences helps you quickly scan the paper and be reminded of the key points, which is helpful when you return to the paper later.

Notes may include ideas, connections to other work, questions, comments, and references to follow up on.

There are many ways for taking notes on a paper. You can:

• Print out the paper, and write your notes in the margins.
• Annotate the paper PDF from your desktop computer, or mobile device .
• Use personal knowledge management software, like Notion , Obsidian, or Evernote, for note-taking. Notes are easy to find in a structured database and can be linked to each other.
• Use reference management tools to take notes. Having your notes stored with the scientific papers you’ve read has the benefit of keeping all your ideas in one place. Some reference managers, like Paperpile, allow you to add notes to your papers, and highlight key sentences on PDFs .

Note-taking facilitates critical thinking and helps you evaluate the evidence that the authors present. Ask yourself questions like:

• What new contribution has the study made to the literature?
• How have the authors interpreted the results? (Remember, the authors have thought about their results more deeply than anybody else.)
• What do I think the results mean?
• Are the findings well-supported?
• What factors might have affected the results, and have the authors addressed them?
• Are there alternative explanations for the results?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the study?
• What are the broader implications of the study?
• What should be done next?

Note-taking also encourages creative thinking . Ask yourself questions like:

• What new ideas have arisen from reading the paper?
• How does it connect with your work?
• What connections to other papers can you make?
• Write a summary of the paper in your own words. This is your attempt to integrate the new knowledge you have gained with what you already know from other sources and to consolidate that information into memory. You may find that you have to go back and re-read some sections to confirm some of the details.
• Discuss the paper with others. You may find that even at this stage, there are still aspects of the paper that you are striving to understand. It is now a good time to reach out to others—peers in your program, your advisor, or even on social media. In their 10 simple rules for reading a scientific paper , Maureen Carey and coauthors suggest that participating in journal clubs, where you meet with peers to discuss interesting or important scientific papers, is a great way to clarify your understanding.
• A scientific paper can be read over many days. According to research presented in the book " Make it Stick: The Science of Successful Learning " by writer Peter Brown and psychology professors Henry Roediger and Mark McDaniel, "spaced practice" is more effective for retaining information than focusing on a single skill or subject until it is mastered. This involves breaking up learning into separate periods of training or studying. Applying this research to reading a scientific paper suggests that spacing out your reading by breaking the work into separate reading sessions can help you better commit the information in a paper to memory.

A dense journal article may need many readings to be understood fully. It is useful to remember that many scientific papers result from years of hard work, and the expectation of achieving a thorough understanding in one sitting must be modified accordingly. But, the process of reading a scientific paper will get easier and faster with experience.

The best way to read a scientific paper depends on your needs. Before reading the paper, identify your motivations for reading a scientific paper, and pinpoint the information you need. This will help you decide between skimming the paper and reading the paper more thoroughly.

Don’t read the paper from beginning to end. Instead, be aware of the scientific paper format. Take note of the information you need before starting to read the paper. Then skim the paper, jumping to the appropriate sections in the paper, to get the information you require.

It varies. Skimming a scientific paper may take anywhere between 15 minutes to one hour. Reading a scientific paper to obtain a deep understanding may take anywhere between 1 and 6 hours. It is not uncommon to have to read a dense paper in chunks over numerous days.

First, read the introduction to understand the main thesis and findings of the paper. Pay attention to the last paragraph of the introduction, where you can find a high-level summary of the methods and results. Next, skim the paper by jumping to the results and discussion. Then carefully read the paper from start to finish, taking notes as you read. You will need more than one reading to fully understand a dense research paper.

To read a scientific paper critically, be an active reader. Take notes, highlight important sentences, and write down questions as you read. Study the data. Take care to evaluate the evidence presented in the paper.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

How do you read a scientific article?

Published on October 17, 2014 by Bas Swaen . Revised on August 8, 2024.

A scientific article in a journal or scientific publication , if you have little research experience, can seem to be a difficult and complicated text. However, most scientific articles have a clear structure to make reading them just that much easier.

By reading a scientific article in a structured manner, you can better determine if it’s relevant and useful for your dissertation. In this (non-scientific) article, we explain how you should read a scientific article.

Table of contents

Before you start, quality of the article, getting started.

In this article we will use the following scientific article as an example:

Example article

Perrett, D. I., Burt, D. M., Penton-Voak, I. S., Lee, K. J., Rowland, D. A., & Edwards, R. (1999). Symmetry and Human Facial Attractiveness.  Evolution and Human Behavior ,  20 , 295-307. Retrieved from  http://www.grajfoner.com/Clanki/Perrett%201999%20Symetry%20Attractiveness.pdf

This article is about the possible link between facial symmetry and the attractiveness of a (human) face. We will concentrate on Experiment 1 in the article.

The very first question that you should ask yourself is, could this article be relevant to my dissertation? You answer this by scanning the article. In other words, read only the title and the headings. If you notice right away that the article is not relevant to your subject, then you are better to look for another article.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Now that you have determined that the article is interesting for your own study, it is worth considering whether the article is of high quality, because you can’t just assume that every scientific article is a high quality one.

When an article of poor quality is used as a source in your dissertation, you run the risk of drawing incorrect or unsubstantiated conclusions. Your supervisor will also always look at the quality of your sources to determine whether your conclusions are well founded.

There are a number of points by which you can determine whether the article is of a high quality.

Now that you know that the article is relevant for your own research and the article is of high quality, you can get started reading the article in more detail.

Step 1: Read the introduction

Many students begin by reading the abstract , but you can better start by reading the introduction. The abstract is concise and often contains difficult language, and it is difficult to understand the abstract if you haven’t yet read anything of the rest of the article.

Step 2: Determine the big question within the research field

What is the “big question” that the researchers in the field of study want to answer?

When you know what the underlying big question is, you understand better why the research in the article was done. The article is, in fact, often just one small part of a much larger study about which more researchers write articles.

Look for the reasons for performing the research. Often, a study builds on a previous study. See which studies were done previously, which limitations these studies had and how this research adds to the prior research. You don’t always have to search for this information yourself, because it is often provided in the paper itself.

In the case of the example article, the big question in the field of research is: “Which factors determine attractiveness?” Possible predictors of attractiveness, such as facial symmetry, are researched. This study focuses on the attractiveness of the human face. Research is being done on the effect of facial symmetry on attractiveness, and a link has been found between symmetry and attractiveness.

Step 3: Determine the research questions

Which research questions are the authors trying to answer, exactly? There could be multiple questions, but there could also be just one. Write down the research questions for yourself.

Sometimes there aren’t any questions but rather hypotheses. with hypotheses instead of research questions, the research determines whether the expectation of the author (the hypothesis) is correct. In that case, write down the hypotheses.

In the article from the example, there are no clear research questions or hypotheses to be found, so you’ll have to determine them yourself from the text. Two experiments are done in the research, studying whether a certain expectation that the authors have is correct. This is, then,  research that assasses hypotheses. It appears from the introduction that the expectation is that people find a symmetric face more attractive than a face that is not symmetric. This brings us to H1 and H0.

H1 = People find a symmetric face more attractive than an asymmetric face.

H0 = People have no preference between a symmetric face and an asymmetric face.

Step 4: Look at the approach

What do the authors do to answer the specific questions? What is the plan of approach?

Surprisingly enough, in prior studies of the attractiveness of human faces, a preference for asymmetry was found. The researchers of this article think that this is due to the fact that the faces in the previous studies were made unnaturally symmetric. With this type of research, a photograph is taken of a face and this is then manipulated to make the face symmetrical. This resulted in unnatural properties and changes in the structure of the skin. It is, then, not strange that the participants had a preference for the naturally asymmetric faces. In this research, therefore, a new manipulation technique was used to make the faces symmetric. The form of the facial features is varied and skin structure is kept constant.

Step 5: Read the methods section

Write down exactly what the authors have done per experiment. Describe it, for example, in a clear outline but make sure that you record all the details so that you can understand the big picture from your outline. This goes more quickly by hand than on the computer, but for clarity we have made an example in Word.

Table – Experiment 1

Plan – Experiment 1

Summary planning

For Experiment 1, two photos were made of each face. A photo was taken of a test subject and this photo was then manipulated using the new technique to make a symmetric face. Thus, there was an original photo and a more symmetrically formed version of the photograph. The photographs were presented in pairs to 49 evaluators. For each pair, they had to choose the most attractive photo.

Step 6: Read the results section

Write one or more sections to summarize the results of each experiment, each figure and each table. Don’t even think about what the results mean; just write them down as they are. Often, the results are summarized in the figures and tables, so look at these carefully!

Also pay particular attention to the words “significant” and “not significant”. These specific words have an important statistical meaning.

A result is significant if the probability is smaller then 5%  that the difference found or the link found is coincidental. If the probability that the observed result is coincidental is equal to or greater than 5% , then the result is not significant. The probability that the result found is coincidental is also indicated with ‘ p = … ’. This means that a result is significant when the number after the ‘ p ’ is smaller than 0.05 (p < 0.05). Some studies speak of significance at only 1%. In these studies, the ‘ p ’ must be smaller than 0.01.

Example significance

Suppose you are researching the influence of studying on the grade of an exam, and you do this research on 100 test subjects. It appears from your research that the average grade increases with more hours of study. Now, your finding doesn’t mean that you can immediately conclude that this result is always the case. It is possible that the results of your research are purely coincidental. That’s why you test for significance. Only when your result is significant may you conclude that more hours of study contribute to a higher average grade on the exam.

Example table 1: Extent of asymmetry in the photographs

Of the 30 faces, the average asymmetry of all 13 facial features is not more than 1 pixel. Only at the height of the outer corners of the eyes was a significant asymmetry observed.

Example piece about preferences

At the end of the experiment, the number of symmetric faces chosen was calculated per evaluator. In 57.8% of the cases, the evaluators preferred a symmetrical face. The t-test shows that the average deviates significantly from 50% (or, no preference). If the result was 50% then this would mean that the evaluator had no preference for symmetry or asymmetry. It was also tested whether the preference for symmetry differed with photos of men or women, and whether there was a difference in the preferences of male and female evaluators. Finally, it was investigated whether the gender of both the evaluator and the person in the photograph had an interactive effect on the number of preferred symmetrical faces. For all of these tests, the ANOVA test was performed and no significant results were observed. The analysis has even been done in reverse as well. Now it was examined per photo whether there was a preference for the symmetrical face more often than for the asymmetrical face. This examination gave the same results. Of all the evaluators, 75% did not realize that the faces were manipulated and did not think that this had influenced their judgment. It turns out that, also with only this group of evaluators, the preference for symmetrical faces is significant and is 56%.

Step 7: Determine if the results answer the specific questions

Form your own interpretations before you read those of the authors (in the discussion ). Ask yourself at this step: what do the results mean? If you are a beginner in reading scientific articles, then this will be more difficult than when you are more experienced.

In the beginning, you will often need to adjust your opinion to that of the authors themselves. Later, you will probably be more critical.

The results show that the evaluators did find that symmetrical faces are more attractive than asymmetrical faces. The gender of the evaluator and of the faces could have perhaps influenced the preference, but this was not evident. Thus, H1 is confirmed.

Step 8: Read the discussion and conclusion

Now read what the authors think that the results mean. Do you agree with their interpretations? Also pay attention to what the authors identify as shortcomings of the research and what they propose for follow-up research. Don’t assume that they have done everything correctly – be critical.

Did you see any shortcomings that they didn’t mention? Do you agree with their proposal for follow-up research?

I agree with the interpretations of the authors. They identify a number of shortcomings whereby they immediately propose follow-up research to improve the completed research. I noticed that the study sample is small and that the ratio between the number of men and women is not very equal. This they don’t identify as a shortcoming, but perhaps the research could be improved with a larger and more equal sample. In addition, they have used only white respondents for the research, but it is naturally interesting to study whether the results also hold for the other races, such as Asians.

Step 9: Go back to the abstract

Now you can read the abstract. Does this reflect what the authors say in the article? Does the abstract match your interpretation of the article?

The abstract fits well with the rest of the article. I have interpreted the article as it was described in the abstract.

Step 10: Save the article and always reference the source

Now that you’ve read the article intensively, is it still relevant and useful for your research? If so, take the following steps:

• Save the document. As of recently, you can save your found articles in Google Scholar via ‘My library’. You can activate this by clicking on ‘My library’ to the upper left of the search bar. Note: you do need a Gmail account for this.
• If you don’t have a Gmail account, then save the document preferably in the Cloud (for example, Microsoft OneDrive or Dropbox ). For a document name, you can use the authors and the title of the article.
• Immediately note the article in a reference list . Often this must be in the APA Style . You can use the APA Citation Generator , Mendeley or References in Word for this purpose.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Swaen, B. (2024, August 08). How do you read a scientific article?. Scribbr. Retrieved August 26, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/tips/how-do-you-read-a-scientific-article/

Is this article helpful?

Get unlimited documents corrected

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

How to Read an Academic Journal Article

• What Is in an Academic Journal
• Anatomy of a Journal Article

How to Read an Article

How you read an academic journal article depends on why you are reading it, or where you are in your own research. Rather than reading the whole thing from beginning to end, you can save time and effort by focusing on the parts relevant to your needs at the time, and skim or skip other parts. If you approach your reading strategically, you can read a lot without actually reading all that much. You should end up reading more abstracts than articles, skimming more articles than you read, and reading more articles than you cite.

Consider why and when you are reading:

Why: Are you constructing an original experiment of your own? Building on the work of others to construct your own argument? Writing a critical or analytical review of work done on a topic? Looking for a methodology or a theoretical approach for your own study?

When: Are you new to the topic? Formulating ideas for your own research? Evaluating articles to select the best ones to use? Writing up your results?

In general, your research and reading will be in three stages:

Search – Familiarize yourself with a topic and the work done on that topic.

Select – Pick the articles most likely to be useful for your own project.

Study – In-depth analysis of content you will be using in your own project.

But note that these are not exclusive steps. While searching, you may want to jump right into an in-depth reading of a particularly interesting article. While studying your selected articles, you may think of more ideas you want to find articles about.

non-Standard – Articles in humanities often look different from most science and social science articles, so, though the general strategies for reading are the same, specifics can vary and what to look for may be different, so use this section below for how to apply the general strategies to read humanities articles.

Stages of Reading an Academic Journal Article

• non-Standard

At this stage, you are casting a broad net to find many possibly relevant articles.

Think of keywords to describe your idea for a topic or your proposed hypothesis. Use OneSearch or select an appropriate subject database and try different combinations of keywords. 

Before even retrieving any articles, read titles, abstracts, and keywords in your search results. Find the broad questions concerning the topic: what is being studied, what is being found, what are the current controversies, how has research on the topic changed and developed over time, what language do researchers use? Look for more terms to use for more and better focused searches.

Look for review articles (the word ‘review’ is usually in the title) on the topic. If you find any, read them first: they will give you a systematic overview of work done on the topic, and list possible sources you can use.

After reading enough abstracts to get a broad overview of what’s out there, pick the most interesting articles based on titles and abstracts.

But don’t read those articles start to finish. Just read the introduction and especially the literature review section (usually part of the Introduction, but sometimes in a separate section following the introduction). The introduction explains the purpose and the broader context of the study, and the literature review provides a brief systematic summary of what others have published on the article’s topic to show how this study relates to other work on the topic.

Then scan the bibliography to see who they are citing. If any titles look especially interesting, look up those articles. Note if the same articles or authors keep showing up in lots of bibliographies – these are likely key sources for the topic.

Use what you learn during the ‘search’ phase to revise/refine your topic, research question, or hypothesis, and also for more searching.

After reading enough abstracts to get a broad overview of what’s out there, use those abstracts to pick the articles potentially most useful for your project. But, again, don't read them from start to finish. At this point, you want to narrow down the potentially most interesting articles to the actually most interesting which will be worth a lot of time and effort to focus on.

Read (or re-read) the introduction, focusing on the specific purpose of the study: what question(s) is it trying to answer? What is the main argument and hypothesis? What is unique about this study, what does it contribute to existing knowledge? And, does this matter for your project?

Next, read the discussion and conclusion sections. Now that you have used your initial searching phase to construct a good general mental framework for the topic, you can better recognize the significance of an article's conclusions, and better grasp the author's discussion of the findings. You are looking to answer the questions: what does this study mean and why is it important? Also, is it important for your project?

Somewhere in the discussion or conclusion section, the author should address the limitations of the study, i.e. not just what can be concluded but what cannot be concluded, along with any potential weaknesses of the methodology or results for supporting the conclusions. This can help you judge how useful the article will be for your project. In addition, authors usually point out new further questions resulting from the current study. You can use this part to come up with ideas for your own project to explore.

At this point, you are most likely not interested in the contents of the methodology or results section, at least not enough to read them carefully, but they may be worth quickly skimming, especially if you know of something specific to look for. For example, if you have a particular methodology in mind for your own study, you can see whether others have used that methodology. If you know you will need data of a particular type, you can check to see if it is included. In fact, if you are, for example, investigating a particular methodology you want to use, you may want to search specifically for studies using that methodology, even if they are not about a related topic; in that case, you would be interested only in the methodology section of a paper.

Now you can select the best articles from your scanning and skimming for careful study.

On this reading, skip the abstract and introduction and go straight to the methodology section. Read it with at least enough attention to understand how they carried out the study. If it is a methodology you want to use, read it with even more care, enough to be able to apply the methodology to your study (you may need to consult other sources with more extensive instructions on the methodology; if so, see if the article cites such sources). 

Next, read the results section closely and carefully. Before you go on to read the authors' discussion and conclusions, do your own analysis of the results. You can use their method of analysis or apply another appropriate method for analyzing the type of results generated by the study and reported in the article. What can you conclude, and not conclude, from your analysis of the results?

Now, carefully and critically read the authors' discussion and conclusion in conjunction with the methodology and results. Consider, for example, whether their methodology is appropriate for what they are trying to establish (e.g., sample size and selection, variables, procedures, equipment). Are the data presented clearly, and do the data make sense given their methodology? Are their analyses and arguments supported by the data? Have they missed any confounding variables? Are the results reliable (same results over time) and valid (measure what it is supposed to measure)? The specific questions you ask will depend on the type of study, but be as rigorous as you can in your critique.

Also consider: how well do their conclusions match yours?

Read through the bibliography to see if there are any significant or interesting looking titles you didn’t find in earlier searches.

By now, you should know the article well enough to quickly scan through it and whatever notes you have taken to find relevant and important parts to focus on and use as you work on your project.

Research in the humanities is different from scientific research, so the format of journal articles is also often different. Scientists typically conduct experiments on or observations of some part of the natural world, whereas humanists analyze the meanings of human creations. Social scientists studying the social world typically do experimental or observational research but may do analytical research, and sometimes both.

Humanities (and some social science) articles are thus more typically in the form of essays rather than reports of experiments or observations. Their goal is to establish a point or defend a thesis by logical argumentation and analysis of textual etc. evidence. Humanities articles are also typically referred to as “secondary literature” which critically analyzes primary sources (artistic creations or original records of the object, event, phenomenon, etc., being studied), whereas science and most social science articles are referred to as “primary literature” which present the authors’ original analysis of the data (experimental results, field measurements, surveys, etc.) which they collected or created.

Without an experiment to report, a humanities article will not have sections for experimental methods and results, though it will often at least briefly discuss the analytical method(s) the author used. It will typically have:

• An introduction posing a question to be answered or a problem to be addressed. Generally, this includes a literature review putting the question in context by pointing out a problem or gap in previous explanations or interpretations. Then the article states the thesis it will argue for. You may find a single sentence stating the thesis, but the thesis is often described over several sentences or a paragraph or two.
• A discussion presenting a detailed analysis of evidence from primary sources used to build an argument to support the thesis.  
• A conclusion to summarize the results of the analysis and explain the significance of the argument. Limitations and qualifications of arguments, or interesting observations not central to the argument, are often presented in footnotes here and through the discussion.
• A bibliography listing sources used.

But the sections may not be labeled that way, or there may be many sections or sub-sections labeling different aspects of the analysis or steps of the argument presented. Also, the introduction, discussion, and conclusion can blend into each other rather than being separate sections. So in general, searching for, selecting, and studying humanities articles is not as systematic as for science and most social science articles. Here are some modifications of the standard steps:

Search: Humanities articles often do not include abstracts, so you cannot always rely only on what is presented in the database you are searching to judge whether it is worth retrieving the full article. If there is no abstract, there may at least be subject tags in the database record, but you may need to open the full article and scan the introductory section to get a better idea of what the article is about and to get more ideas for terms to search.

You may find review articles (the phrase “literature review” or “review of the literature” is usually in the title), but these are not as common in humanities. 

Select: Quickly page through the article to see how it is structured. This is easier if there are many labelled sections and sub-sections, but you may need to skim around in the first and last pages of the article to find where the introductory thesis and resulting conclusions are explicated. Skim/read the introduction and conclusion enough to determine whether the article as a whole is relevant to your project, or scan the full article to see whether it includes topics significant to your project.  

Study: Start with a relatively quick skim/read through the full article, noting the general structure of the argument: what is it using for evidence, how is it analyzing that evidence and connecting the pieces into an argument, etc. Now you can conduct a close reading of the article and its argument to see how the details fit, and analyze how well the argument supports the thesis. Or, if you are interested only in one or a few topics covered in the article, you know what sections to focus on for a close reading. Also, read the footnotes in any section of the article relevant to your project.

• << Previous: Anatomy of a Journal Article
• Last Updated: Oct 27, 2023 11:59 AM
• URL: https://libguides.wesleyan.edu/readanarticle

How to Read a Scholarly Article

• Anatomy of an Article
• Key Reading Strategies
• Quick Tips for Reading Strategies
• Reading for Different Disciplines
• Reference Sources
• Planning Resources

So Many Articles, So Little Time

Skipping around is encouraged when reading a scholarly article:

• begin by reading abstract
• skim the introduction and jump to the end to read the conclusion

Skimming these sections first will allow you to quickly determine if the article is relevant to your research and if you should do an in-depth reading.

1. Abstract

Read the abstract first

The abstract previews the entire article, makes it easier to judge whether it is relevant.

For the sciences:

• Titles can only tell you so much about the content of the article. The Abstract acts as a preview for the entire article, including the methods and results. By reading the Abstract first, you can get a better idea of what the article is actually about, if it relates to what you are researching, and whether it is worth your time to read the rest of it.

For the humanities:

• Articles in the Arts and Humanities do not always include an Abstract, and if they do, it might just be the first paragraph of the introduction. If not included, move onto the Introduction. Make sure to skim through the section headings, if they are there. This will give you an idea of the organization of the article as well as a general idea of themes.

2. Intro & Conclusion

Next, read the intro and the conclusion

Learn more about the topic of study and what the authors learned through their research.

Applies to both sciences and humanities:

• These two sections give you the background information for the topic of the article as well as what happened in the study.
• The introduction includes info about previous studies/papers that relate to the current one.
• The conclusion will provide a summary of the the study findings or analysis and an explanation of how their research contributes to their specific field of study.
• By reading the conclusion you see whether the study answered the original research question and what the authors see as the next steps in their research.

3. Look at the Data

Take a look at results, i.e. tables, charts, graphs or images 

Get a better idea of the results of the research or analytical study. 

For the Sciences:

• Closely look at the visual representations of the data. See what conclusions you come to and make note of them. When you read through the entire article, compare your own conclusions to what the authors saw in their results and data.

For the Humanities:

• The article may not present numeric data however, there might be other visual representations of what the scholars are studying. For example, reproductions of art pieces, or excerpts from primary sources or literary pieces.These are worth looking at to see the materials being studied.

4. Read the Article from Start to Finish

Do an in-depth reading

Now that you have pre-read some of the article and are sure it relates to your research topic, do an in-depth reading. 

Applies to both sciences and humanities

• Read the article from start to finsih.
• Take notes.
• Summarize sections or paragraphs.
• Keep a subject dictionary or the Internet/Wikipedia close by. If you come across any unfamiliar terms, you can quickly look them up.  
• Keep track of the citation information of the articles you do read and want to use in your research. Look at the References/Works Cited list. You may find additional scholarly articles related to your research. 

Reverse Oreo Method

Scholarly articles are structured in the reverse of an Oreo, meaning that the “good stuff” is on the outside:

The “dry stuff” is on the inside of the article – the Methodology and the Results. A key point of the scientific method is that results must be able to be replicated to be valid, so Methodology shows exactly how the study might be reproduced, but sheds little light on the big picture, unless you are replicating the experiment. Statistical analysis in the Results are important, but is typically just the math verifying the significance of the results.

From: Amelia V. Gallucci-Cirio Library , Fitchburg State University

• << Previous: Anatomy of an Article
• Next: Quick Tips for Reading Strategies >>
• Last Updated: Oct 17, 2023 11:01 AM
• URL: https://libguides.ucmerced.edu/reading-scholarly-articles

• Your Science & Health Librarians
• How To Find Articles with Databases
• Video Learning
• Artificial Intelligence Tools
• Industry Reports
• How To Evaluate Articles
• Search Tips, General
• Develop a Research Question
• How To Read A Scientific Paper
• How To Interpret Data
• How To Write A Scientific Paper
• Teaching Materials
• Systematic & Evideced-Based Reviews
• Get More Help

Useful Sources

• How to (Seriously) Read a Scientific Paper
• How to Read a Scientific Article
• Infographic: How to Read a Scientific Paper

Reading a Scientific Paper

Reading a scientific paper can seem like a daunting task. However, learning how to properly read a scholarly article can make the process much easier! Understanding the different parts of a scientific article can help the reader to understand the material. 

• The title of the article can give the reader a lot of information about its contents, such as the topic, major ideas, and participants. 
• Abstracts help to summarize the article and give the reader a preview of the material they are about to read. The abstract is very important and should be read with care. 

Introduction

• What is the article's purpose being stated in the introduction?
• Why would this article be of interest to experts in the field?
• What is already known, or not known, about this topic? 
• What specifically is the hypothesis? If one is not given, what are the expectations of the author?
• Having these questions in mind when reading the introduction can help the reader gain an understanding of the article as a whole. A good research article will answer these questions in the introduction and be consistent with their explanation throughout the rest of the article. 
• What are the specific methods used by the researcher?
• Does the researcher provide a coherent and viable plan for their experiment?
• Has the author missed any variables that could effect the results of their findings?
• How do the methods in this article compare with similar articles?
• Ex: they are correlated and support the hypothesis, they contradict they hypothesis, ect. 
• If there are differences from the hypothesis, what differences did the researcher find?
• Are the findings described in an unbiased way?
• Is there new information presented that wasn't known before?
• Is the researcher unbiased in their presentation?
• Ex: More research needs to be done, the findings show a solution to a known problem, etc.
• What suggestions are made about future research? If no suggestions are made, should there be?
• The conclusion points out the important findings from the experiment or research. Occasionally, it will incorporated into the discussion section of the paper. 

General Tips

• Fully comprehending a scientific article will most likely take more than one read. Don't be discouraged if you don't understand everything the first time, reading scientific papers is a skill that is developed with practice. 
• Start with the broad and then to the specific. Begin by understanding the topic of the article before trying to dig through all the fine points the author is making. 
• Always read the tables, charts, and figures. These will give a visual clue to the methods and results sections of the paper and help you to understand the data. The author put these in the paper for a reason, don't dismiss their importance. 
• Don't be afraid to ask questions or look up definitions. If you do not understand a term or concept, do not be afraid to ask for help or look up an explanation. 
• << Previous: Develop a Research Question
• Next: How To Interpret Data >>
• Last Updated: Jul 26, 2024 11:56 AM
• URL: https://guides.libraries.indiana.edu/STEM

Social media

• Instagram for Herman B Wells Library
• Facebook for IU Libraries

Additional resources

Featured databases.

• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) OneSearch@IU
• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) Academic Search (EBSCO)
• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) ERIC (EBSCO)
• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) Nexis Uni
• Resource available without restriction HathiTrust Digital Library
• Databases A-Z
• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) Google Scholar
• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) JSTOR
• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) Web of Science
• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) Scopus
• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) WorldCat

IU Libraries

• Diversity Resources
• About IU Libraries
• Alumni & Friends
• Departments & Staff
• Jobs & Libraries HR
• Intranet (Staff)
• IUL site admin

How To Skim Read Journal Articles

Fast-Track Your Literature Review By Focusing On Three Sections

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | May 2020

If you’ve just started your literature review process, you’re probably sitting on a pile of scientific journal articles and research papers that are (1) lengthy and (2) written in very dense , academic language that is difficult to digest (at the best of times). It’s intimidating, for sure – and you’re probably wondering how on earth you’re going to get through it all.

You might be asking yourself some of these questions:

• Do I need to read every journal article to make sure I cover everything?
• Do I need to read every section of each article to understand it?
• If not, which sections should I focus on?

First things first, relax (I can feel your tension!). In this post, I’m going answer these questions and explain how to approach your review of the literature the smart way , so that you focus only on the most relevant literature and don’t waste time on low-value activities.

So, grab a nice hot cup of coffee (or tea, or whatever – just no beers) and let’s take a look at those questions, one at a time.

Question 1:

Do i need to read every journal article on my topic when doing my literature review.

The good news is that you don’t need to read every single journal article on your topic. Doing so would just be a waste of your time, as you’re generally looking to understand the current state of the literature – not the full history of it.

But… and this is an important but. You do need to read quite a bit to make sure that you have a comprehensive view of the current state of the literature (and of knowledge) in your area of research.

Quality trumps quantity when it comes to reviewing the literature. In other words, you need to focus on reading the journal articles that are most cited (i.e. that other academics have referenced) in relation to your topic keyword(s). You should focus on articles that are recent, relevant and well cited .

But how do I know if an article is well cited?

Thankfully, you can check the number of citations for any article really easily using Google Scholar . Just enter the article title in Google Scholar and it will show you how many citations it has – here’s an example:

In fact, Google Scholar is a great way to find the key journal articles for any keyword (topic) in general, so chances are you’ll be using this to find your journal articles in the first place. Therefore, be sure to keep an eye on citation count while you’re sourcing articles. It would also be smart to dedicate a column to it in your literature review catalogue (you can download one for free here ) so that you can quickly filter and sort by citation count.

A quick caveat – citation count is not a perfect metric for the quality of a journal article (unfortunately there is no unicorn metric that indicates quality). While its usually a good indicator of how popular an article is, it doesn’t mean the findings of the article are perfect (remember, the Kardashians are popular too – enough said). To the contrary, it could indicate that there’s a lot of controversy regarding the findings (sounds like the Kardashians again).

So, long story short – don’t be conned by citation count alone. Be sure to also pay attention the to quality of the journal each article is published in (you can check journal rank here ), and pay attention to what other articles say about any given popular article.

Need a helping hand?

Question 2:

Do i need to read the full journal journal article when doing my literature review.

Some more good news – no, you don’t need to read every single word in each journal article you review as part of your literature review. When you’re just starting your literature review, you need to get a big picture view of what each journal article is saying (in other words, the key questions and findings). Generally you can get a good feel for this by reading a few key sections in each article (we’ll get to these next).

That said (ah, there had to be a catch, right?), as you refine your literature review and establish more of a focus, you’ll need to dive deeper into the most important articles. Some articles will be central to your research – but you probably still don’t need to read them from first page to the last.

Question 3:

Which sections of each journal article should i read.

To get a big-picture view of what any article is all about, there are three sections that are very useful. These three sections generally explain both what the article is about (i.e. what questions they were trying to answer) and what the findings were (i.e. what their answers were). This is exactly what you’re looking for, so these three sections provide a great way for you to save time during your literature review.

So, let’s take a look at the three sections:

1 – The abstract (or executive summary)

The abstract (which is located right up front) provides a high-level overview of what the article is about. This is giving you the first little taste of the soup , so to speak. Generally, it will discuss what the research objectives were was and why they were important. This will give you a clear indication of how relevant the article is to your specific research, so pay close attention.

Sometimes the abstract will also discuss the findings of the article (much like a thesis abstract ), but this is not always the case (yeah, the abstract can be such a tease sometimes). If it does, it’s a bonus. But even so, you should still read the other sections, as the abstract only provides a very high-level view, and can miss out on specific nuances of the research.

2 – The introduction section

The introduction section will go into more detail about the topic being investigated and why this is important for the field of research. This will help you understand a bit more detail about what exactly they were investigating and in what context . Context is really important, so pay close attention to that.

For example, they might be investigating your exact topic, but in a country other than your own, or a different industry. In that case, you’d know that you need to pay very close attention to exactly how they undertook their research.

So, make sure you pay close attention to the introduction chapter to fully understand the focus of the research and the context in which it took place . Both will be important when it comes to writing your literature review, as you’ll need to use this information to build your arguments.

3 – The conclusion

While the introduction section tells you what the high-level questions the researchers asked, the conclusion section tells you what answers they found . This provides you with something of a shortcut to grasping the gist of the article, without reading all the dull and dry detail – yeah, it’s a little cheeky, I know. Of course, the conclusion is not going to highlight every nuance of the analysis findings, so if the article is highly relevant to your research, you should make sure to also pay close attention to the analysis findings section.

In addition to the findings of the research, the conclusion section will generally also highlight areas that require further research . In other words, they’ll outline areas that genuinely require further academic investigation (aka research gaps ). This is a gold mine for refining your topic into something highly original and well-rooted in the existing literature – just make sure that the article is recent, or someone else may have already exploited the research gap. If you’re still looking to identify a research topic, be sure to check out our video covering that here .

By reviewing these three sections of each article, you’ll save yourself a lot of time, while still getting a good understanding of what each article is saying. Keep in mind that as your literature review progresses, you focus will narrow and you’ll develop a set of core highly relevant articles, which you should sink your teeth into more deeply.

Let’s Recap

In this post, we looked at how to read academic journal articles quickly and efficiently, to save you many hours of pain while undertaking your literature review.

The key takeaways to remember are:

• You don’t need to read every single journal article covering your topic – focus on the most popular, authoritative and recent ones
• You don’t need to read every word of every article. To start, you just need to get a high-level understanding of the literature, which you can get by focusing on three key areas in each journal article.
• The three sections of each journal article to review are the abstract , the introduction and the conclusion .
• Once you’ve narrowed down your focus and have a core set of highly relevant, highly authoritative articles, you can dive deeper into them, paying closer attention to the methodology and analysis findings.

And there you have it – now go on and hammer through that pile of articles at warp speed. While you’re at it, why not also check out our other posts and videos covering research topic ideation , dissertation and thesis proposal , literature review , methodology , analysis and more.

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Literature Review Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

28 Comments

Thanks Derek for the tips

Reviewing the Literature can be overwhelming if you do not have the plan or the right structure to navigate the pool of information

You’re most welcome, Aletta. All the best with your literature review.

I personally have found these tips as a key to my long standing problem of reading articles. Thanks a million times

Simple and easy to read guidance… funny too

Great to hear that, Rishen 🙂

Much appreciated Derek. I already realized I could not read everything, but you confirming that has brought a lot of relief.

Great to hear that, Mazwakhe 🙂

Derek sir, I’m really happy for you.You made me to think very smart and effective way to do the review of literature.

Thank you so much.

Dear Derek, thank you for your easy and straight forward guidance,

Thanks for the interesting and informative article

You’re most welcome, Sanoon. Glad it was useful.

Thanks for the insights, I am about to start my literature review and this article as well as the other material from GradCoach will help me on the jorney.

You’re most welcome! Good luck writing your literature review

It was a great and effective information.

Thank you that was very helpful. I am taking a directed studies summer course, and I have to submit a literature review by end of August. That article was short, straight to the point and interesting 🙂 thank you Derek

You’re welcome, Emy 🙂 Good luck with your studies!

Thanks Derek. Reading this article has given me a boost because I have been so stock on how to go about my literature review.Though I know I am not meant to read the whole article.But your explanation has given me a greater insight.

Thank you very much sir for your great explanation 😄 Hopefully I’ve enough diligence and courage to start

You’re most welcome, Felicia. Good luck with your research.

thanks, it was helpful.

Thanks Derek for doing such a wonderful job of helping. Blessings Bro!

Concise and applicable, nice! what a great help. I am now doing a literature review section on my thesis, I used to waste so much time on reading articles that is not relevant back and forth.

Thank for your great help!

Hi Derek, i am busy with my research literature. I submited my 1st draft but it was way irrelevant as per comments made by my supervisor… i gave myself time to find out where i diverted until i lesson to some of your videos. As we speak now, i am starting following the guidelines and i feel confident that i am on the right track now. Thanks a lot my brother

You’re most welcome 🙂

I can’t explain my mood when I realised I had to study more than 40 articles about my study field. It was indeed a game-changer. Thank you very much, Derek. Also, Kardashian was the best example that can be used for this situation :)))

Thank you for posting this. It truly takes a load off! I’m new to Doctoral research and peer review study and “Overwhelmed” doesn’t quite sum up how I felt. This is a tremendous help!

Thank you for the advice. Question, how do one keep count of all the articles considered from starting point to narrowed down. Manually, or is there another way?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

• What Is A Literature Review (In A Dissertation Or Thesis) - Grad Coach - […] first step of any literature review is to hunt down and read through the existing research that’s relevant to your research…

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

How to Read Scholarly Articles: Strategies for Reading

• What is Scholarly?
• The Anatomy of a Scholarly Article
• Strategies for Reading
• Where to Find Scholarly Articles

How to Read

The fact is, these scholars are experts in their field writing for other experts. They are using specialized language that can be difficult for someone new to understand. So, you can sit down with an article and start reading, but you may become discouraged pretty quickly.

The tips below are to help you read scholarly articles STRATEGICALLY . These tips can help you approach a scholarly text for easier reading and better understanding. 

1. Abstract

Read the Abstract first.  The Abstract will preview the entire article, makes it easier to judge whether it is relevant.

For the Sciences:

Titles can only tell you so much about the content of the article. The Abstract acts as a preview for the entire article, including the methods and results. By reading the Abstract first, you can get a better idea of what the article is actually about, if it relates to what you are researching, and whether it is worth your time to read the rest of it.

For the Humanities:

• Articles in the Arts and Humanities do not always include an Abstract, and if they do, it might just be the first paragraph of the introduction. If not included, move onto the Introduction. Make sure to skim through the section headings, if they are there. This will give you an idea of the organization of the article as well as a general idea of themes.

2. Intro and Conclusion

Next, read the Introduction and Conclusion.  Learn more about the topic of study and what the authors found out in the process.

Applies for both sciences and humanities:

• These two sections give you the background information you need for the topic of the article as well as what happened in the study. The introduction also includes info about previous studies/papers that relate to the current one, which gives you, the reader, a context. By reading the conclusion you see whether the study answered the original research question and what the authors see as the next steps in the scholarship.

Literature review : An overview of previous scholarship on the present topic. Gives both author and reader a context for where the article falls in the literature. Likely to be a separate section within the introduction or right after it.

Take a look at the tables, charts and graphs.

Get a better idea of the results of the research or analytical study. 

• Closely look at the visual representations of the data. See what conclusions you come to and make note of them. When you read through the entire article, compare your conclusions to what the authors saw in their results and data.
• Usually, there is no numeric data that the authors present in their results. However, there might be other visual representations of what the scholars are studying. For example, reproductions of art pieces, or excerpts from primary sources or literary pieces. These are worth looking at to see the materials being studied.

4. Read the Whole Thing

Read it! (For real this time.)

Now that you have pre-read some of the article and are sure it relates to your research topic, read the whole thing. It still might not be easy, but it will not be as hard as if you were reading it with no context.

Some more tips about reading:

• Summarize sections or paragraphs
• Keep a subject dictionary, your textbook glossary or the Internet/Wikipedia close by. If you come across any unfamiliar terms, you can quickly look them up.
• Keep track of the citation information of the articles you do read and want to use in your paper or assignment. This will make life a lot easier at the end of the project. 
• Reading in the Humanities and Social Sciences Short guide from Trent University with helpful questions to think about to get the most of reading scholarly articles.
• Reading and Annotating Slideshow from the University of New England. Introduces methods of reading and how to annotate materials.
• A Guide to Reading and Analysing Academic Articles A guide from Yukon College, discussing the steps for effective reading of academic articles
• How to Read a Psychology Article Class website from UIC. Includes specific information about how to read articles in Psychology
• Anatomy of a Scholarly Article Tutorial on how to identify parts of a scholarly article. Created by North Carolina State University.
• << Previous: The Anatomy of a Scholarly Article
• Next: Where to Find Scholarly Articles >>
• Last Updated: May 8, 2024 9:59 AM
• URL: https://researchguides.ccc.edu/hw/scholarlyarticles

• Password Reset
• Course Listings
• Leganto – faculty
• More Logins...
• Campus Maps
• Contact a librarian for assistance
• Contact us – staff directory
• Research Guides
• Bush Memorial Library
• Good Places to Start

How to Read and Understand a Scholarly Article: Home

What is a scholarly article.

A scholarly article, sometimes referred to as a peer-reviewed article, is one written by an expert or experts in an academic or professional field for other experts in that field.  That usually makes them: 1) excellent sources of information on a certain topic and 2) complex and perhaps even difficult to read or understand.  

Peer-review specifically means that before an article is published it is reviewed by other experts in the field to ensure it is well written, contains new or important information, and uses sound research methods.  

These sorts of articles are often required reading in college courses because the publishing process is very rigorous and produces high quality results.  Knowing how to read and understand them will be helpful throughout college and beyond.  

Where to Begin

Believe it or not, the best way to read a scholarly article may not be all at once!  

You'll want to focus on the Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusions first (look to the right for information on each of those sections).   These parts are at the beginning and end of the article.  Focusing on those, while just skimming over the middle of the article, will give you a good idea of the article's purpose and its meaning.  This is especially helpful if you are new to the topic.

Once you've got that down, you should go back and read the whole thing , including the other sections (like methodology, literature review, and references) to get more details and a better understanding of the "big picture." 

The Parts of an Article

Scholarly articles often have the same or similar parts.  Not every article will have every section listed below, but they are the most common.

Abstract:  A brief summary of the entire article, including results.  

Introduction:  Background information as well as the purpose or hypothesis of the article.  

Literature Review:  An overview of existing knowledge (from books, articles, dissertations or other sources) on the topic at hand, highlighting gaps that can be filled.

Methodology:  A detailed description of the research methods used to carry out the study (especially in scientific articles).  

Results/Findings : Data from the study (especially in scientific articles). 

Discussion:  A narrative style explanation of the results or findings, whether they matched the hypothesis or there were any limitations or problems, and how the results impact the field.

Conclusion:  A final overview of the results and suggestions for future areas of research.  

Bibliography/References:  A list of all the sources used or referenced in this article, often a good place to look for more information on the topic.

Finding Meaning

Once you've skimmed or read the article a few times, you should have a good grasp on what the author was trying to communicate.  Now its time to find meaning in the article.   Think about:

What is the author's main claim?

How did they (or didn't they) back up that claim?

How was their research limited?  

What gaps have yet to be filled in the topic?  

How do the author's study or findings relate to your research/paper/topic?  

-Don't get too hung up on jargon.  Use context to get a basic understanding, and highlight terms to go back and look up later if you need to.  

-Break it up!  Don't try to read it all at once.  Instead, break it into smaller parts and re-read them a few times.  

-Skimming is ok!  Especially on your first read-through. 

-Take notes!  Write in the margins or on a sheet of scratch paper and highlight important quotes, findings, and ideas.

• Last Updated: May 17, 2019 9:44 AM
• URL: https://bushlibraryguides.hamline.edu/c.php?g=157761

Research Techniques for Undergraduate Research

• Library Research
• Citation Tracing/Tracking in Google Scholar
• Strategies for Research
• Chicago Manual of Style
• Writing Research Papers
• How to Read a Citation
• How to read and understand a scientific paper
• Skimming an article
• Workshop presentation powerpoint

How to Read a Scientific Paper overview

Below, you'll find two different articles about how to read a scientific paper. The second one is written by a science journalist and was added to this guide in 2024. We hope you find both articles useful. They overlap and bring useful techniques to light. 

How to read and understand a scientific paper: a guide for non-scientists

• Handout for How to Read and Understand a Scientific Paper: A Guide for Non-Scientists

Reprinted by permission of the author, Jennifer Raff, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Kansas,  https://about.me/jenniferraff  ::  original URL:  https://violentmetaphors.com/2013/08/25/how-to-read-and-understand-a-scientific-paper-2/ Last week’s post ( The truth about vaccinations: Your physician knows more than the University of Google ) sparked a very lively discussion, with comments from several people trying to persuade me (and the other readers) that  their  paper disproved everything that I’d been saying. While I encourage you to go read the comments and contribute your own, here I want to focus on the much larger issue that this debate raised: what constitutes scientific authority?

It’s not just a fun academic problem. Getting the science wrong has very real consequences. For example, when a community doesn’t vaccinate children because they’re afraid of “toxins” and think that prayer (or diet, exercise, and “clean living”) is enough to prevent infection,  outbreaks happen .

“Be skeptical. But when you get proof, accept proof.” –Michael Specter

What constitutes enough proof? Obviously everyone has a different answer to that question. But to form a truly educated opinion on a scientific subject, you need to become familiar with current research in that field.  And to do that, you have to read the “primary research literature” (often just called “the literature”). You might have tried to read scientific papers before and been frustrated by the dense, stilted writing and the unfamiliar jargon. I remember feeling this way!  Reading and understanding research papers is a skill which every single doctor and scientist has had to learn during graduate school.  You can learn it too, but like any skill it takes patience and practice.

I want to help people become more scientifically literate, so I wrote this guide for how a layperson can approach reading and understanding a scientific research paper. It’s appropriate for someone who has no background whatsoever in science or medicine, and based on the assumption that he or she is doing this for the purpose of getting a basic  understanding of a paper and deciding whether or not it’s a reputable study.

The type of scientific paper I’m discussing here is referred to as a  primary research article . It’s a peer-reviewed report of new research on a specific question (or questions). Another useful type of publication is a  review article . Review articles are also peer-reviewed, and don’t present new information, but summarize multiple primary research articles, to give a sense of the consensus, debates, and unanswered questions within a field.  (I’m not going to say much more about them here, but be cautious about which review articles you read. Remember that they are only a snapshot of the research at the time they are published.  A review article on, say, genome-wide association studies from 2001 is not going to be very informative in 2013. So much research has been done in the intervening years that the field has changed considerably).

Before you begin: some general advice Reading a scientific paper is a completely different process than reading an article about science in a blog or newspaper. Not only do you read the sections in a different order than they’re presented, but you also have to take notes, read it multiple times, and probably go look up other papers for some of the details. Reading a single paper may take you a very long time at first. Be patient with yourself. The process will go much faster as you gain experience.

Most primary research papers will be divided into the following sections: Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, and Conclusions/Interpretations/Discussion. The order will depend on which journal it’s published in. Some journals have additional files (called Supplementary Online Information) which contain important details of the research, but are published online instead of in the article itself (make sure you don’t skip these files).

Before you begin reading, take note of the authors and their institutional affiliations. Some institutions (e.g. University of Texas) are well-respected; others (e.g.  the Discovery Institute ) may appear to be legitimate research institutions but are actually agenda-driven.  Tip: g oogle “Discovery Institute” to see why you don’t want to use it as a scientific authority on evolutionary theory.

Also take note of the journal in which it’s published. Reputable (biomedical) journals will be indexed by  Pubmed . [ EDIT: Several people have reminded me that non-biomedical journals won’t be on Pubmed, and they’re absolutely correct! (thanks for catching that, I apologize for being sloppy here). Check out  Web of Science  for a more complete index of science journals. And please feel free to share other resources in the comments!]    Beware of  questionable journals .

  As you read, write down  every single word  that you don’t understand. You’re going to have to look them all up (yes, every one. I know it’s a total pain. But you won’t understand the paper if you don’t understand the vocabulary. Scientific words have extremely precise meanings).

Step-by-step instructions for reading a primary research article

1. Begin by reading the introduction, not the abstract.

The abstract is that dense first paragraph at the very beginning of a paper. In fact, that’s often the  only  part of a paper that many non-scientists read when they’re trying to build a scientific argument. (This is a terrible practice—don’t do it.).  When I’m choosing papers to read, I decide what’s relevant to my interests based on a combination of the title and abstract. But when I’ve got a collection of papers assembled for deep reading, I always read the abstract  last . I do this because abstracts contain a succinct summary of the entire paper, and I’m concerned about inadvertently becoming biased by the authors’ interpretation of the results.

2. Identify the BIG QUESTION.

Not “What is this paper about”, but “What problem is this entire field trying to solve?”

This helps you focus on why this research is being done.  Look closely for evidence of agenda-motivated research.

3. Summarize the background in five sentences or less.

Here are some questions to guide you:

What work has been done before in this field to answer the BIG QUESTION? What are the limitations of that work? What, according to the authors, needs to be done next?

The five sentences part is a little arbitrary, but it forces you to be concise and really think about the context of this research. You need to be able to explain  why  this research has been done in order to understand it.

4.   Identify the SPECIFIC QUESTION(S)

What  exactly  are the authors trying to answer with their research? There may be multiple questions, or just one. Write them down.  If it’s the kind of research that tests one or more null hypotheses, identify it/them.

Not sure what a null hypothesis is? Go read  this , then go back to my last post and read one of the papers that I linked to (like  this one ) and try to identify the null hypotheses in it. Keep in mind that not every paper will test a null hypothesis.

5. Identify the approach

What are the authors going to do to answer the SPECIFIC QUESTION(S)?

  6. Now read the methods section. Draw a diagram for each experiment, showing exactly what the authors did.

I mean  literally  draw it. Include as much detail as you need to fully understand the work.  As an example, here is what I drew to sort out the methods for a paper I read today ( Battaglia et al. 2013: “The first peopling of South America: New evidence from Y-chromosome haplogroup Q” ). This is much less detail than you’d probably need, because it’s a paper in my specialty and I use these methods all the time.  But if you were reading this, and didn’t happen to know what “process data with reduced-median method using Network” means, you’d need to look that up.

You don’t need to understand the methods in enough detail to replicate the experiment—that’s something reviewers have to do—but you’re not ready to move on to the results until you can explain the basics of the methods to someone else.

7.   Read the results section. Write one or more paragraphs to summarize the results for each experiment, each figure, and each table. Don’t yet try to decide what the results  mean , just write down what they  are.

You’ll find that, particularly in good papers, the majority of the results are summarized in the figures and tables. Pay careful attention to them!  You may also need to go to the Supplementary Online Information file to find some of the results.

 It is at this point where difficulties can arise if statistical tests are employed in the paper and you don’t have enough of a background to understand them. I can’t teach you stats in this post, but  here ,  here , and  here  are some basic resources to help you.  I STRONGLY advise you to become familiar with them.

  THINGS TO PAY ATTENTION TO IN THE RESULTS SECTION:

-Any time the words “ significant ” or “ non-significant ” are used. These have precise statistical meanings. Read more about this  here .

-If there are graphs, do they have  error bars  on them? For certain types of studies, a lack of confidence intervals is a major red flag.

-The sample size. Has the study been conducted on 10, or 10,000 people? (For some research purposes, a sample size of 10 is sufficient, but for most studies larger is better).

8. Do the results answer the SPECIFIC QUESTION(S)? What do you think they mean?

Don’t move on until you have thought about this. It’s okay to change your mind in light of the authors’ interpretation—in fact you probably will if you’re still a beginner at this kind of analysis—but it’s a really good habit to start forming your own interpretations before you read those of others.

9. Read the conclusion/discussion/Interpretation section.

What do the authors  think  the results mean? Do you agree with them? Can you come up with any  alternative  way of interpreting them? Do the authors identify any weaknesses in their own study? Do you see any that the authors missed? (Don’t assume they’re infallible!) What do they propose to do as a next step? Do you agree with that?

10. Now, go back to the beginning and read the abstract.

Does it match what the authors said in the paper? Does it fit with your interpretation of the paper?

11. FINAL STEP:  (Don’t neglect doing this)  What do other researchers say about this paper?

Who are the (acknowledged or self-proclaimed) experts in this particular field? Do they have criticisms of the study that you haven’t thought of, or do they generally support it?

Here’s a place where I do recommend you use google! But do it last, so you are better prepared to think critically about what other people say.

(12. This step may be optional for you, depending on why you’re reading a particular paper. But for me, it’s critical! I go through the “Literature cited” section to see what other papers the authors cited. This allows me to better identify the important papers in a particular field, see if the authors cited my own papers (KIDDING!….mostly), and find sources of useful ideas or techniques.)

Now brace for more conflict– next week we’re going to use this method to go through a paper on a controversial subject! Which one would you like to do? Shall we critique one of the papers I posted last week?

UPDATE: If you would like to see an example, you can find one  here ———————————————————————————————————

I gratefully acknowledge Professors José Bonner and Bill Saxton for teaching me how to critically read and analyze scientific papers using this method. I’m honored to have the chance to pass along what they taught me.

How to Read a Scientific Paper by a science journalist

How to read a scientific paper.

• Alexandra Witze
• November 6, 2018

   Léelo en español

It’s one of the first, and likely most intimidating, assignments for a fledgling science reporter. “Here,” your editor says. “Write up this paper that’s coming out in  Science  this week.” And suddenly you’re staring at an impenetrable PDF—pages of scientific jargon that you’re supposed to understand, interview the author and outside commenters about, and describe in ordinary English to ordinary readers.

Fear not!  The Open Notebook  is here with a primer on how to read a scientific paper. These tips and tricks will work whether you’re covering developmental biology or deep-space exploration. The key is to familiarize yourself with the framework in which scientists describe their discoveries, and to not let yourself get bogged down in detail as you’re trying to understand the overarching point of it all. As a specific example, we’ve marked up a  Science  paper in the accompanying image.

But first, let’s break down what a typical scientific paper contains. Most include these basic sections, usually in this order:

The  author list  is as it sounds, a roster of the scientists involved in the discovery. But hidden within the names are  clues that will help you navigate the politics  of reporting the story. The first name in the list is often (but not always) the person who did the most work, perhaps the graduate student or postdoc who is the lead on the project. This person is usually (but not always) designated as the “corresponding author” by an asterisk by their name, or by their email address being given on the first or last page of the paper. If the corresponding author is not the first name in the author list, then take extra care to Google the various authors and figure out how they relate to one another. (In many fields, such as biology and psychology, the last author in the list is typically the senior author or lab head. In others, such as experimental physics where the author list can number in the dozens or hundreds, authors are usually listed alphabetically.) The senior author might be able to provide some broad perspective as to why and how the study was undertaken. But the first or corresponding author is much more likely to be the person who actually did the work, and therefore your better request for an interview.

The  abstract  is a summary of the paper’s conclusions. Always read this first, several times over. Usually the significance of the paper will be laid out here, albeit in technical terms. A good abstract will summarize what research was undertaken, what the scientists found, and why it’s important. (Compare the abstract of  this recent  Nature  paper , on the discovery of a prehistoric human hybrid, to the first three paragraphs of  Sarah Kaplan’s  Washington Post  story reporting the discovery . Kaplan clearly captures the essence of the new findings as described in the abstract.) Relevant numbers such as the statistical significance of the finding are often highlighted here as well. Abstracts are prone to typographical errors, so be sure to double-check numbers against the body of the paper as well as your interview with the author.

The  body  of the paper lays out the bulk of the scientific findings. Pay special attention to the first couple of paragraphs, which often serve as an introduction, describing previous research in the field and why the new work is important. This is an excellent place to hunt for references to other papers that can serve as your guidepost for outside commenters (more on that later). Next will come the details of how the research was done; sometimes much of this is broken out into a later  methods  section (see below). Then come the  results , which may be lengthy. Look for phrases such as “we concluded” to clue you in to their most important points. If statistics are involved, see Rachel Zamzow’s  primer on how to spot shady statistics.

The final section (sometimes labeled as  discussion ) often summarizes the new findings, puts them in context, and describes the likely next steps to be taken. If your reading has been dragging through the results section, now is the time to refocus. “That sort of information will help a writer answer the nearly inevitable “so what?” question for their readers as well as their editors,” says Sid Perkins, a freelance science writer in Crossville, Tennessee, who writes for outlets including  Science  and  Science News for Students .

The  figures  are the data, graphics, or other visual representations of the discovery. Read these and their captions carefully, as they often contain the bulk of the new findings. If you don’t understand the figures, ask the scientist to walk you through them during your interview. Don’t be afraid to say things like, “I don’t understand what  the x-axis  means.”

The  references  are your portal into a world of additional inscrutable PDFs. You need to plow through at least a couple of the citations, because they are your initial guide in figuring out who you need to call for outside comment. The references are referenced (usually by number) within the body of the text, so you can pinpoint the ones that will be most helpful. For instance, if the text talks about how previous studies have found the opposite of this new one, go look up the cited references, because those authors would be excellent outside commenters. If you do not have access to the journals described in the references, you can at least look at the paper abstract, which is always  outside the paywall , to get a sense of what those earlier studies concluded. (For further caveats on references, see below.)

The  acknowledgments  are meant for transparency, to show the contributions of the various authors and where they got their funding from. Things to look for in here are whether they thank other scientists for “discussions” or “review” of the work; sometimes peer reviewers are explicitly acknowledged as such, in which case you can call those people right away for outside comment. Occasionally there are humorous tidbits that  you can pick up on for a story , such as when authors thank the field-camp guards who kept them  safe from predatory polar bears . The funding section is usually pro forma, but it is worth scanning for mention of unusual sources of income, such as from a science-loving philanthropist. If the authors declare competing financial interests (such as a patent filing) you will need to report those out and make sure you understand what financial conflicts of interest may be clouding their objectivity.

The  methods  often appear in a ridiculously small typeface after the body of the paper. These lay out how the actual experiments were done. Scour these for any details that will bring your story to life. For instance, they might describe how the climate models were so complicated that they took more than a year to run on one of the world’s most powerful supercomputers.

Supplementary information  comes with some but not all papers. In most cases it is extra material that the journal did not want to devote space to describing in the paper itself. Always check it out, because there may be hidden gems. In  a 2015 study of global lake warming , the only way to find out which specific lakes were warming—and  talk about the nearest ones for readers —was to wade through the supplementary information. In another recent example, Harvard researchers left it to the supplementary information to explain  that they cranked up a leaf-blower  to see how lizards fared during hurricanes, a fact that the Associated Press’s Seth Borenstein  turned into his lede .

So now you’re armed with the basics of what makes up a science paper. How should you tackle reading for your next assignment? The task will be more manageable if you break it into a series of jobs.

Strategize During the First Pass

Your first dive into a paper should be aimed at gathering the most important information for your story—that is, what the research found and why anyone should care. For that, consider following the approach of Mark Peplow, a freelance science journalist in Cambridge, England, who writes for publications including  Nature  and  Chemical & Engineering News .

If it’s a field he’s relatively familiar with, such as chemistry or materials science, Peplow takes a first pass through the paper, underlining with a red pen all the facts that are likely to make it into his initial draft. “That means I can produce a skeleton first draft of the story by simply writing a series of sentences containing what I’ve underlined, and then go into editing mode to jigsaw them into the right order,” he says. (In my annotated example, I’ve done this for the abstract using a purple pen.)

As Peplow reads, he looks for numbers to help make the story sing (“… so porous that a chunk of material the size of a sugar cube contains the surface area of 17 tennis courts”—see orange highlighter in the annotated paper) and methodological details that might prompt a fun interview question (“How scary was it to be pouring that very hazardous liquid into another one?”). He also keeps an eye out for anything indicating an emerging trend or other examples of the same phenomenon, which can be useful for context within the story or as a forward-looking kicker (see how he pulls this off in  this  Chemical & Engineering News  story) .

But what if the paper is in a field you’re not experienced with, and you don’t understand the terminology? Peplow has a plan for that too. “I read the abstract, bathe in my lack of understanding, and mentally throw the abstract away,” he says.

Then he goes through the paper, underlining fragments he understands and putting wiggly lines next to paragraphs that he thinks sound important, but doesn’t actually know what they mean. Jargon words get circled, and equations ignored. He forges onward, paying attention to phrases such as “our findings,” “revealed,” “established,” or “our measurements show”—signs that these are the new and important bits. “Once I’ve reached the end of the paper, and I’m sure I don’t understand it, I remind myself it’s not my fault,” Peplow says.

At that point, Peplow starts looking up definitions for the jargon words, either with Google or Wikipedia or in a stack of science reference books he picked up for free when a local library closed. He jots definitions of the words on the paper. To understand concepts, he sometimes searches  EurekAlert!  for past press releases that explain core concepts, or Googles a string of keywords and adds “review” to hunt for a more comprehensible description.

By this point, Peplow can circle back to the paragraphs marked with wiggly lines and start to understand them better. What he doesn’t yet comprehend, he marks down as an interview question for the researcher.

Circle Back for What You May Have Missed

Before picking up the phone for that interview, it’s worth making a second pass through the paper to see what else you need to help you in your reporting. Check, usually near the end of the paper, to see whether the scientists discuss what the next steps should be—either for their own team or for other groups following up to confirm or expand on the new results, says Perkins. That can provide a ready-made kicker for your story.

Susan Milius, a reporter who covers the life sciences for  Science News , often makes a beeline straight for the references to try to start identifying outside commenters for a piece. She will find those PDFs and then look within the references’ references to build a broad understanding of the field. One caveat, though: Be sure to research how these possible commenters are connected to the author of the current study. Once, Milius phoned an outside commenter who had published on the topic in question some years earlier—but that scientist turned out to be the spouse of the new paper’s author. She had a different last name than her husband.

It’s also worth remembering that the authors may well be biased in which references they include in the paper. Self-citations, in which authors try to boost their citation count by adding their previous publications to the reference list, are common. And sometimes authors deliberately omit papers by competing groups, a fact that is not always caught during the peer-review process. So don’t rely on the references within the PDF to be comprehensive; try a Google Scholar search using keywords from the paper to unearth whether there are competing groups out there.

Other clues may lie in how long the manuscript took to make it through the peer-review process. For many journals these dates come at the very end of the paper, marked something like “submitted” and “accepted.” Different journals have different timescales for publishing, but it is always worth looking to see whether the manuscript languished an extraordinary amount of time (like many months) in the review process. If so, ask the author why things took so long. (A fairly innocuous way to do this is to say something like, “I noticed it took a while for this paper to be accepted. Can you tell me how that process went?” Then be prepared for the authors to go on a rant about peer review.)

Hunt for Extra Details

Finally, see if there are additional sources of information you can sweep into your reporting. Check to see if the author’s institution is issuing a press release about the work; if this isn’t already posted on EurekAlert!, ask the author during the interview if they are preparing additional press materials and, if so, how you can get hold of those. This is also a good time to ask for any art, such as photos or videos to illustrate your story. You will of course have already looked at all their figures in detail, so you’ll be well placed to request the art that is most relevant to what you and your editor are looking for.

With these tools at your side, you should be well suited to tackle your next scientific paper.

Alexandra Witze  is a science journalist in Boulder, Colorado, and a member of  The Open Notebook ’s board of directors.  Her news story on the Martian subglacial lake  (marked up above) appeared in  Nature . Follow her on 

• << Previous: How to Read a Citation
• Next: Skimming an article >>
• Last Updated: Jun 3, 2024 12:48 PM
• URL: https://libguides.citytech.cuny.edu/advancedResearch

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: Reading Research Effectively

• Purpose of Guide
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• The Research Problem/Question
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Evaluating Sources
• Reading Research Effectively
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Is it Peer-Reviewed?
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism [linked guide]
• Annotated Bibliography
• Grading Someone Else's Paper

Reading a Scholarly Article or Research Paper

Reading Research Publications Effectively

It's easy to feel overwhelmed and frustrated when first reading a scholarly article or research paper. The text is dense and complex and often includes abstract or convoluted language . In addition, the terminology may be confusing or applied in a way that is unfamiliar. To help overcome these challenges w hen you first read an article or research paper, focus on asking specific questions about each section. This strategy can help with overall comprehension and understanding how the content relates [or does not relate] to the research problem you are investigating. This approach will also help identify key themes as you read additional studies on the same topic. As you review more and more studies about your topic, the process of understanding and critically evaluating the research will become easier because the content of what you review will begin to coalescence around common themes and patterns of analysis.

Think about the following in this general order:

1.  Read the Abstract

An abstract summarizes the basic content of a scholarly article or research paper. Questions to consider when reading the abstract are: What is this article about? What is the working hypothesis or thesis? Is this related to my question or area of research? The abstract can be used to help filter out sources that may have appeared useful when you began searching for information but, in reality, are not relevant.

2.  Identify the Research Problem and Underlying Questions? 

If, after reading the abstract, you believe the paper may be useful, focus on examining the research problem and identifying the questions the author is trying to address. Look for information that is relevant to your research problem and make note of how and in what way this information relates to what you are investigating.

3.  Read the Introduction and Discussion/Conclusion

The introduction provides the main argument and theoretical framework of the article. Questions to consider for the introduction include what do we already know about this topic and what is left to discover? What other research has been conducted about this topic? How is this research unique? Will this study tell me anything new related to the research problem I am investigating?

Questions to ask yourself while reading the discussion and conclusion sections include what does the study mean and why is it important? What are the weaknesses in their argument? Does the conclusion contain any recommendations for future research and do you believe conclusions about the significance of the study and its findings are valid?

4.  Read about the Methods/Methodology

If what you have read so far closely relates to your research problem, then move on to reading about how the author(s) gathered information for their research. Questions to consider include how did the author do the research? Was it a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods project? What data is the study based on? Could I repeat their work and is all the information available to repeat the study?

5.  Read about the Results and Analysis

Next, read the outcome the research and how it was discussed and analyzed. If any non-textual elements [e.g., graphs, charts, tables, etc.] are confusing, focus on the explanations about them in the text. Questions to consider are what did the author find and how did they find it? Are the results presented in a factual and unbiased way? Does their analysis of results agree with the data presented? Is all the data present? What conclusions do you formulate from this data and does it match with the author's conclusions?

6.  Review the References

The list of references, or works cited, shows you the basis of prior research used by the author(s) to support their study. The references can be an effective way to identify additional sources of information on the topic. Questions to ask include what other research studies should I review? What other authors are respected in this field, i.e., who is cited most often by others? What other research should be explored to learn about issues I am unclear or need more information about?

Reading Tips

Preparing to Read a Scholarly Article or Research Paper for the First Time

Reading scholarly publications effectively is an acquired skill that involves attention to detail and the ability to comprehend complex ideas, data, and concepts in a way that applies logically to the research problem you are investigating. Here are some strategies to consider.

While You are Reading

• Focus on information in the publication that is most relevant to the research problem
• Think critically about what you read and seek to build your own arguments; not everything is 100% true or examined effectively
• Read out of order! This isn't a novel or movie; you want to start with the spoiler
• Look up the definitions of words you don't know as you read

There are any number of ways to take notes as you read, but use the method that you feel most comfortable with. Taking notes as you read will save time when you go back to examine your sources. Below are some suggestions:

• Print the article and highlight, circle, and/or underline text as you read [or, you can use the highlight text   feature in a PDF document]
• Take notes in the margins [Adobe Reader offers pop-up sticky notes]
• Focus on highlighting important quotes; consider using a different color to differentiate between quotes and other types of text you want to return to when writing
• Quickly summarize the main or key points at the end of the paper

As you read, write down questions that come to mind that relate to or may clarify your research problem. Here are a few questions that might be helpful:

• Have I taken time to understand all the terminology?
• Am I spending too much time on the less important parts of this article?
• Are there any issues that the authors did not consider?
• Do I have any reason to question the credibility of this research?
• What specific problem does the research address and why is it important?
• How do these results relate to my research interests or to other works which I have read?

Adapted from text originally created by Holly Burt, USC Libraries, April 2018. Thank you, Holly!

• << Previous: Evaluating Sources
• Next: Primary Sources >>
• Last Updated: Aug 24, 2024 10:22 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.txstate.edu/socialscienceresearch

How to Read and Understand a Scientific Paper: A Step-by-Step Guide for Non-Scientists

Assistant Professor of Physical Anthropology, University of Kansas, joint Ph.D. in genetics and anthropology

To form a truly educated opinion on a scientific subject, you need to become familiar with current research in that field. And to be able to distinguish between good and bad interpretations of research, you have to be willing and able to read the primary research literature for yourself. Reading and understanding research papers is a skill that every single doctor and scientist has had to learn during graduate school. You can learn it too, but like any skill it takes patience and practice.

Reading a scientific paper is a completely different process from reading an article about science in a blog or newspaper. Not only do you read the sections in a different order than they're presented, but you also have to take notes, read it multiple times, and probably go look up other papers in order to understand some of the details. Reading a single paper may take you a very long time at first, but be patient with yourself. The process will go much faster as you gain experience.

The type of scientific paper I'm discussing here is referred to as a primary research article. It's a peer-reviewed report of new research on a specific question (or questions). Most articles will be divided into the following sections: abstract, introduction, methods, results, and conclusions/interpretations/discussion.

Before you begin reading a paper, take note of the authors and their institutional affiliations. Some institutions ( e.g. , University of Texas) are well-respected; others may appear to be legitimate research institutions but are actually agenda-driven. Also take note of the journal in which it's published. Be cautious of articles from questionable journals , or sites like Natural News , that might resemble peer-reviewed scientific journals but aren't.

Step-by-Step Instructions for Reading a Primary Research Article

1. Begin by reading the introduction, not the abstract.

The abstract is that dense first paragraph at the very beginning of a paper. In fact, that's often the only part of a paper that many non-scientists read when they're trying to build a scientific argument. (This is a terrible practice. Don't do it.) I always read the abstract last, because it contains a succinct summary of the entire paper, and I'm concerned about inadvertently becoming biased by the authors' interpretation of the results.

2. Identify the big question.

Not "What is this paper about?" but "What problem is this entire field trying to solve?" This helps you focus on why this research is being done. Look closely for evidence of agenda-motivated research.

3. Summarize the background in five sentences or less.

What work has been done before in this field to answer the big question? What are the limitations of that work? What, according to the authors, needs to be done next? You need to be able to succinctly explain why this research has been done in order to understand it.

4. Identify the specific question(s).

What exactly are the authors trying to answer with their research? There may be multiple questions, or just one. Write them down. If it's the kind of research that tests one or more null hypotheses , identify it/them.

5. Identify the approach.

What are the authors going to do to answer the specific question(s)?

6. Read the methods section.

Draw a diagram for each experiment, showing exactly what the authors did. Include as much detail as you need to fully understand the work.

7. Read the results section.

Write one or more paragraphs to summarize the results for each experiment, each figure, and each table. Don't yet try to decide what the results mean ; just write down what they are . You'll often find that results are summarized in the figures and tables. Pay careful attention to them! You may also need to go to supplementary online information files to find some of the results. Also pay attention to:

• The words "significant" and "non-significant." These have precise statistical meanings. Read more about this here .
• Graphs. Do they have error bars on them? For certain types of studies, a lack of confidence intervals is a major red flag.
• The sample size. Has the study been conducted on 10 people, or 10,000 people? For some research purposes a sample size of 10 is sufficient, but for most studies larger is better.

8. Determine whether the results answer the specific question(s).

What do you think they mean? Don't move on until you have thought about this. It's OK to change your mind in light of the authors' interpretation -- in fact, you probably will if you're still a beginner at this kind of analysis -- but it's a really good habit to start forming your own interpretations before you read those of others.

9. Read the conclusion/discussion/interpretation section.

What do the authors think the results mean? Do you agree with them? Can you come up with any alternative way of interpreting them? Do the authors identify any weaknesses in their own study? Do you see any that the authors missed? (Don't assume they're infallible!) What do they propose to do as a next step? Do you agree with that?

10. Go back to the beginning and read the abstract.

Does it match what the authors said in the paper? Does it fit with your interpretation of the paper?

11. Find out what other researchers say about the paper.

Who are the (acknowledged or self-proclaimed) experts in this particular field? Do they have criticisms of the study that you haven't thought of, or do they generally support it? Don't neglect to do this! Here's a place where I do recommend you use Google ! But do it last, so you are better prepared to think critically about what other people say.

A full-length version of this post originally appeared on the author's personal blog .

From Our Partner

More in science.

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Guidance Regarding Methods for De-identification of Protected Health Information in Accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule

This page provides guidance about methods and approaches to achieve de-identification in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy Rule. The guidance explains and answers questions regarding the two methods that can be used to satisfy the Privacy Rule’s de-identification standard: Expert Determination and Safe Harbor 1 .  This guidance is intended to assist covered entities to understand what is de-identification, the general process by which de-identified information is created, and the options available for performing de-identification.

In developing this guidance, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) solicited input from stakeholders with practical, technical and policy experience in de-identification.  OCR convened stakeholders at a workshop consisting of multiple panel sessions held March 8-9, 2010, in Washington, DC. Each panel addressed a specific topic related to the Privacy Rule’s de-identification methodologies and policies. The workshop was open to the public and each panel was followed by a question and answer period.  Read more on the Workshop on the HIPAA Privacy Rule's De-Identification Standard. Read the Full Guidance .

1.1 Protected Health Information 1.2 Covered Entities, Business Associates, and PHI 1.3 De-identification and its Rationale 1.4 The De-identification Standard 1.5 Preparation for De-identification

Guidance on Satisfying the Expert Determination Method

2.1 Have expert determinations been applied outside of the health field? 2.2 Who is an “expert?” 2.3 What is an acceptable level of identification risk for an expert determination? 2.4 How long is an expert determination valid for a given data set? 2.5 Can an expert derive multiple solutions from the same data set for a recipient? 2.6 How do experts assess the risk of identification of information? 2.7 What are the approaches by which an expert assesses the risk that health information can be identified? 2.8 What are the approaches by which an expert mitigates the risk of identification of an individual in health information? 2.9 Can an Expert determine a code derived from PHI is de-identified? 2.10 Must a covered entity use a data use agreement when sharing de-identified data to satisfy the Expert Determination Method?

Guidance on Satisfying the Safe Harbor Method

3.1 When can ZIP codes be included in de-identified information? 3.2 May parts or derivatives of any of the listed identifiers be disclosed consistent with the Safe Harbor Method? 3.3 What are examples of dates that are not permitted according to the Safe Harbor Method? 3.4 Can dates associated with test measures for a patient be reported in accordance with Safe Harbor? 3.5 What constitutes “any other unique identifying number, characteristic, or code” with respect to the Safe Harbor method of the Privacy Rule? 3.6 What is “actual knowledge” that the remaining information could be used either alone or in combination with other information to identify an individual who is a subject of the information? 3.7 If a covered entity knows of specific studies about methods to re-identify health information or use de-identified health information alone or in combination with other information to identify an individual, does this necessarily mean a covered entity has actual knowledge under the Safe Harbor method? 3.8 Must a covered entity suppress all personal names, such as physician names, from health information for it to be designated as de-identified? 3.9 Must a covered entity use a data use agreement when sharing de-identified data to satisfy the Safe Harbor Method? 3.10 Must a covered entity remove protected health information from free text fields to satisfy the Safe Harbor Method?

Glossary of Terms

Protected health information.

The HIPAA Privacy Rule protects most “individually identifiable health information” held or transmitted by a covered entity or its business associate, in any form or medium, whether electronic, on paper, or oral. The Privacy Rule calls this information protected health information (PHI) 2 . Protected health information is information, including demographic information, which relates to:

• the individual’s past, present, or future physical or mental health or condition,
• the provision of health care to the individual, or
• the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to the individual, and that identifies the individual or for which there is a reasonable basis to believe can be used to identify the individual. Protected health information includes many common identifiers (e.g., name, address, birth date, Social Security Number) when they can be associated with the health information listed above.

For example, a medical record, laboratory report, or hospital bill would be PHI because each document would contain a patient’s name and/or other identifying information associated with the health data content.

By contrast, a health plan report that only noted the average age of health plan members was 45 years would not be PHI because that information, although developed by aggregating information from individual plan member records, does not identify any individual plan members and there is no reasonable basis to believe that it could be used to identify an individual.

The relationship with health information is fundamental.  Identifying information alone, such as personal names, residential addresses, or phone numbers, would not necessarily be designated as PHI.  For instance, if such information was reported as part of a publicly accessible data source, such as a phone book, then this information would not be PHI because it is not related to heath data (see above).  If such information was listed with health condition, health care provision or payment data, such as an indication that the individual was treated at a certain clinic, then this information would be PHI.

Back to top

Covered Entities, Business Associates, and PHI

In general, the protections of the Privacy Rule apply to information held by covered entities and their business associates.  HIPAA defines a covered entity as 1) a health care provider that conducts certain standard administrative and financial transactions in electronic form; 2) a health care clearinghouse; or 3) a health plan. 3   A business associate is a person or entity (other than a member of the covered entity’s workforce) that performs certain functions or activities on behalf of, or provides certain services to, a covered entity that involve the use or disclosure of protected health information. A covered entity may use a business associate to de-identify PHI on its behalf only to the extent such activity is authorized by their business associate agreement.

See the OCR website https://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/ for detailed information about the Privacy Rule and how it protects the privacy of health information.

De-identification and its Rationale

The increasing adoption of health information technologies in the United States accelerates their potential to facilitate beneficial studies that combine large, complex data sets from multiple sources.  The process of de-identification, by which identifiers are removed from the health information, mitigates privacy risks to individuals and thereby supports the secondary use of data for comparative effectiveness studies, policy assessment, life sciences research, and other endeavors.

The Privacy Rule was designed to protect individually identifiable health information through permitting only certain uses and disclosures of PHI provided by the Rule, or as authorized by the individual subject of the information.  However, in recognition of the potential utility of health information even when it is not individually identifiable, §164.502(d) of the Privacy Rule permits a covered entity or its business associate to create information that is not individually identifiable by following the de-identification standard and implementation specifications in §164.514(a)-(b).  These provisions allow the entity to use and disclose information that neither identifies nor provides a reasonable basis to identify an individual. 4 As discussed below, the Privacy Rule provides two de-identification methods: 1) a formal determination by a qualified expert; or 2) the removal of specified individual identifiers as well as absence of actual knowledge by the covered entity that the remaining information could be used alone or in combination with other information to identify the individual.

Both methods, even when properly applied, yield de-identified data that retains some risk of identification.  Although the risk is very small, it is not zero, and there is a possibility that de-identified data could be linked back to the identity of the patient to which it corresponds.

Regardless of the method by which de-identification is achieved, the Privacy Rule does not restrict the use or disclosure of de-identified health information, as it is no longer considered protected health information.

The De-identification Standard

Section 164.514(a) of the HIPAA Privacy Rule provides the standard for de-identification of protected health information.  Under this standard, health information is not individually identifiable if it does not identify an individual and if the covered entity has no reasonable basis to believe it can be used to identify an individual.

§ 164.514 Other requirements relating to uses and disclosures of protected health information. (a) Standard: de-identification of protected health information. Health information that does not identify an individual and with respect to which there is no reasonable basis to believe that the information can be used to identify an individual is not individually identifiable health information.

Sections 164.514(b) and(c) of the Privacy Rule contain the implementation specifications that a covered entity must follow to meet the de-identification standard. As summarized in Figure 1, the Privacy Rule provides two methods by which health information can be designated as de-identified.

Figure 1. Two methods to achieve de-identification in accordance with the HIPAA Privacy Rule.

The first is the “Expert Determination” method:

(b) Implementation specifications: requirements for de-identification of protected health information. A covered entity may determine that health information is not individually identifiable health information only if: (1) A person with appropriate knowledge of and experience with generally accepted statistical and scientific principles and methods for rendering information not individually identifiable: (i) Applying such principles and methods, determines that the risk is very small that the information could be used, alone or in combination with other reasonably available information, by an anticipated recipient to identify an individual who is a subject of the information; and (ii) Documents the methods and results of the analysis that justify such determination; or

The second is the “Safe Harbor” method:

(2)(i) The following identifiers of the individual or of relatives, employers, or household members of the individual, are removed:

(B) All geographic subdivisions smaller than a state, including street address, city, county, precinct, ZIP code, and their equivalent geocodes, except for the initial three digits of the ZIP code if, according to the current publicly available data from the Bureau of the Census: (1) The geographic unit formed by combining all ZIP codes with the same three initial digits contains more than 20,000 people; and (2) The initial three digits of a ZIP code for all such geographic units containing 20,000 or fewer people is changed to 000

(C) All elements of dates (except year) for dates that are directly related to an individual, including birth date, admission date, discharge date, death date, and all ages over 89 and all elements of dates (including year) indicative of such age, except that such ages and elements may be aggregated into a single category of age 90 or older

(D) Telephone numbers

(L) Vehicle identifiers and serial numbers, including license plate numbers

(E) Fax numbers

(M) Device identifiers and serial numbers

(F) Email addresses

(N) Web Universal Resource Locators (URLs)

(G) Social security numbers

(O) Internet Protocol (IP) addresses

(H) Medical record numbers

(P) Biometric identifiers, including finger and voice prints

(I) Health plan beneficiary numbers

(Q) Full-face photographs and any comparable images

(J) Account numbers

(R) Any other unique identifying number, characteristic, or code, except as permitted by paragraph (c) of this section [Paragraph (c) is presented below in the section “Re-identification”]; and

(K) Certificate/license numbers

(ii) The covered entity does not have actual knowledge that the information could be used alone or in combination with other information to identify an individual who is a subject of the information.

Satisfying either method would demonstrate that a covered entity has met the standard in §164.514(a) above.  De-identified health information created following these methods is no longer protected by the Privacy Rule because it does not fall within the definition of PHI.  Of course, de-identification leads to information loss which may limit the usefulness of the resulting health information in certain circumstances. As described in the forthcoming sections, covered entities may wish to select de-identification strategies that minimize such loss.

Re-identification

The implementation specifications further provide direction with respect to re-identification , specifically the assignment of a unique code to the set of de-identified health information to permit re-identification by the covered entity.

If a covered entity or business associate successfully undertook an effort to identify the subject of de-identified information it maintained, the health information now related to a specific individual would again be protected by the Privacy Rule, as it would meet the definition of PHI.  Disclosure of a code or other means of record identification designed to enable coded or otherwise de-identified information to be re-identified is also considered a disclosure of PHI.

(c) Implementation specifications: re-identification. A covered entity may assign a code or other means of record identification to allow information de-identified under this section to be re-identified by the covered entity, provided that: (1) Derivation. The code or other means of record identification is not derived from or related to information about the individual and is not otherwise capable of being translated so as to identify the individual; and (2) Security. The covered entity does not use or disclose the code or other means of record identification for any other purpose, and does not disclose the mechanism for re-identification.

Preparation for De-identification

The importance of documentation for which values in health data correspond to PHI, as well as the systems that manage PHI, for the de-identification process cannot be overstated.  Esoteric notation, such as acronyms whose meaning are known to only a select few employees of a covered entity, and incomplete description may lead those overseeing a de-identification procedure to unnecessarily redact information or to fail to redact when necessary.  When sufficient documentation is provided, it is straightforward to redact the appropriate fields.  See section 3.10 for a more complete discussion.

In the following two sections, we address questions regarding the Expert Determination method (Section 2) and the Safe Harbor method (Section 3).

In §164.514(b), the Expert Determination method for de-identification is defined as follows:

 (1) A person with appropriate knowledge of and experience with generally accepted statistical and scientific principles and methods for rendering information not individually identifiable: (i) Applying such principles and methods, determines that the risk is very small that the information could be used, alone or in combination with other reasonably available information, by an anticipated recipient to identify an individual who is a subject of the information; and (ii) Documents the methods and results of the analysis that justify such determination

Have expert determinations been applied outside of the health field?

Yes. The notion of expert certification is not unique to the health care field.  Professional scientists and statisticians in various fields routinely determine and accordingly mitigate risk prior to sharing data. The field of statistical disclosure limitation, for instance, has been developed within government statistical agencies, such as the Bureau of the Census, and applied to protect numerous types of data. 5

Who is an “expert?”

There is no specific professional degree or certification program for designating who is an expert at rendering health information de-identified.  Relevant expertise may be gained through various routes of education and experience. Experts may be found in the statistical, mathematical, or other scientific domains.  From an enforcement perspective, OCR would review the relevant professional experience and academic or other training of the expert used by the covered entity, as well as actual experience of the expert using health information de-identification methodologies.

What is an acceptable level of identification risk for an expert determination?

There is no explicit numerical level of identification risk that is deemed to universally meet the “very small” level indicated by the method.  The ability of a recipient of information to identify an individual (i.e., subject of the information) is dependent on many factors, which an expert will need to take into account while assessing the risk from a data set.  This is because the risk of identification that has been determined for one particular data set in the context of a specific environment may not be appropriate for the same data set in a different environment or a different data set in the same environment.  As a result, an expert will define an acceptable “very small” risk based on the ability of an anticipated recipient to identify an individual.  This issue is addressed in further depth in Section 2.6.

How long is an expert determination valid for a given data set?

The Privacy Rule does not explicitly require that an expiration date be attached to the determination that a data set, or the method that generated such a data set, is de-identified information.  However, experts have recognized that technology, social conditions, and the availability of information changes over time.  Consequently, certain de-identification practitioners use the approach of time-limited certifications.  In this sense, the expert will assess the expected change of computational capability, as well as access to various data sources, and then determine an appropriate timeframe within which the health information will be considered reasonably protected from identification of an individual.

Information that had previously been de-identified may still be adequately de-identified when the certification limit has been reached.  When the certification timeframe reaches its conclusion, it does not imply that the data which has already been disseminated is no longer sufficiently protected in accordance with the de-identification standard.  Covered entities will need to have an expert examine whether future releases of the data to the same recipient (e.g., monthly reporting) should be subject to additional or different de-identification processes consistent with current conditions to reach the very low risk requirement.

Can an expert derive multiple solutions from the same data set for a recipient?

Yes.  Experts may design multiple solutions, each of which is tailored to the covered entity’s expectations regarding information reasonably available to the anticipated recipient of the data set.  In such cases, the expert must take care to ensure that the data sets cannot be combined to compromise the protections set in place through the mitigation strategy. (Of course, the expert must also reduce the risk that the data sets could be combined with prior versions of the de-identified dataset or with other publically available datasets to identify an individual.) For instance, an expert may derive one data set that contains detailed geocodes and generalized aged values (e.g., 5-year age ranges) and another data set that contains generalized geocodes (e.g., only the first two digits) and fine-grained age (e.g., days from birth).  The expert may certify a covered entity to share both data sets after determining that the two data sets could not be merged to individually identify a patient.  This certification may be based on a technical proof regarding the inability to merge such data sets.  Alternatively, the expert also could require additional safeguards through a data use agreement.

How do experts assess the risk of identification of information?

No single universal solution addresses all privacy and identifiability issues. Rather, a combination of technical and policy procedures are often applied to the de-identification task. OCR does not require a particular process for an expert to use to reach a determination that the risk of identification is very small.  However, the Rule does require that the methods and results of the analysis that justify the determination be documented and made available to OCR upon request. The following information is meant to provide covered entities with a general understanding of the de-identification process applied by an expert.  It does not provide sufficient detail in statistical or scientific methods to serve as a substitute for working with an expert in de-identification.

A general workflow for expert determination is depicted in Figure 2. Stakeholder input suggests that the determination of identification risk can be a process that consists of a series of steps.  First, the expert will evaluate the extent to which the health information can (or cannot) be identified by the anticipated recipients.  Second, the expert often will provide guidance to the covered entity or business associate on which statistical or scientific methods can be applied to the health information to mitigate the anticipated risk.  The expert will then execute such methods as deemed acceptable by the covered entity or business associate data managers, i.e., the officials responsible for the design and operations of the covered entity’s information systems.  Finally, the expert will evaluate the identifiability of the resulting health information to confirm that the risk is no more than very small when disclosed to the anticipated recipients.  Stakeholder input suggests that a process may require several iterations until the expert and data managers agree upon an acceptable solution. Regardless of the process or methods employed, the information must meet the very small risk specification requirement.

Figure 2.  Process for expert determination of de-Identification.

Data managers and administrators working with an expert to consider the risk of identification of a particular set of health information can look to the principles summarized in Table 1 for assistance. 6   These principles build on those defined by the Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology (which was referenced in the original publication of the Privacy Rule). 7 The table describes principles for considering the identification risk of health information. The principles should serve as a starting point for reasoning and are not meant to serve as a definitive list. In the process, experts are advised to consider how data sources that are available to a recipient of health information (e.g., computer systems that contain information about patients) could be utilized for identification of an individual. 8

Table 1. Principles used by experts in the determination of the identifiability of health information.

When evaluating identification risk, an expert often considers the degree to which a data set can be “linked” to a data source that reveals the identity of the corresponding individuals.  Linkage is a process that requires the satisfaction of certain conditions.  The first condition is that the de-identified data are unique or “distinguishing.”  It should be recognized, however, that the ability to distinguish data is, by itself, insufficient to compromise the corresponding patient’s privacy.  This is because of a second condition, which is the need for a naming data source, such as a publicly available voter registration database (see Section 2.6).  Without such a data source, there is no way to definitively link the de-identified health information to the corresponding patient. Finally, for the third condition, we need a mechanism to relate the de-identified and identified data sources. Inability to design such a relational mechanism would hamper a third party’s ability to achieve success to no better than random assignment of de-identified data and named individuals. The lack of a readily available naming data source does not imply that data are sufficiently protected from future identification, but it does indicate that it is harder to re-identify an individual, or group of individuals, given the data sources at hand. 

Example Scenario Imagine that a covered entity is considering sharing the information in the table to the left in Figure 3. This table is devoid of explicit identifiers, such as personal names and Social Security Numbers.  The information in this table is distinguishing, such that each row is unique on the combination of demographics (i.e., Age , ZIP Code , and Gender ).  Beyond this data, there exists a voter registration data source, which contains personal names, as well as demographics (i.e., Birthdate , ZIP Code , and Gender ), which are also distinguishing.  Linkage between the records in the tables is possible through the demographics.  Notice, however, that the first record in the covered entity’s table is not linked because the patient is not yet old enough to vote.

Figure 3.  Linking two data sources to identity diagnoses.

Thus, an important aspect of identification risk assessment is the route by which health information can be linked to naming sources or sensitive knowledge can be inferred. A higher risk “feature” is one that is found in many places and is publicly available. These are features that could be exploited by anyone who receives the information.  For instance, patient demographics could be classified as high-risk features.  In contrast, lower risk features are those that do not appear in public records or are less readily available.  For instance, clinical features, such as blood pressure, or temporal dependencies between events within a hospital (e.g., minutes between dispensation of pharmaceuticals) may uniquely characterize a patient in a hospital population, but the data sources to which such information could be linked to identify a patient are accessible to a much smaller set of people. 

Example Scenario An expert is asked to assess the identifiability of a patient’s demographics.  First, the expert will determine if the demographics are independently replicable .  Features such as birth date and gender are strongly independently replicable—the individual will always have the same birth date -- whereas ZIP code of residence is less so because an individual may relocate.  Second, the expert will determine which data sources that contain the individual’s identification also contain the demographics in question.  In this case, the expert may determine that public records, such as birth, death, and marriage registries, are the most likely data sources to be leveraged for identification.  Third, the expert will determine if the specific information to be disclosed is distinguishable .  At this point, the expert may determine that certain combinations of values (e.g., Asian males born in January of 1915 and living in a particular 5-digit ZIP code) are unique, whereas others (e.g., white females born in March of 1972 and living in a different 5-digit ZIP code) are never unique.  Finally, the expert will determine if the data sources that could be used in the identification process are readily accessible , which may differ by region.  For instance, voter registration registries are free in the state of North Carolina, but cost over $15,000 in the state of Wisconsin.  Thus, data shared in the former state may be deemed more risky than data shared in the latter. 12

What are the approaches by which an expert assesses the risk that health information can be identified?

The de-identification standard does not mandate a particular method for assessing risk.

A qualified expert may apply generally accepted statistical or scientific principles to compute the likelihood that a record in a data set is expected to be unique, or linkable to only one person, within the population to which it is being compared. Figure 4 provides a visualization of this concept. 13 This figure illustrates a situation in which the records in a data set are not a proper subset of the population for whom identified information is known.  This could occur, for instance, if the data set includes patients over one year-old but the population to which it is compared includes data on people over 18 years old (e.g., registered voters).

The computation of population uniques can be achieved in numerous ways, such as through the approaches outlined in published literature. 14 , 15   For instance, if an expert is attempting to assess if the combination of a patient’s race, age, and geographic region of residence is unique, the expert may use population statistics published by the U.S. Census Bureau to assist in this estimation.  In instances when population statistics are unavailable or unknown, the expert may calculate and rely on the statistics derived from the data set.  This is because a record can only be linked between the data set and the population to which it is being compared if it is unique in both.  Thus, by relying on the statistics derived from the data set, the expert will make a conservative estimate regarding the uniqueness of records. 

Example Scenario Imagine a covered entity has a data set in which there is one 25 year old male from a certain geographic region in the United States.  In truth, there are five 25 year old males in the geographic region in question (i.e., the population).  Unfortunately, there is no readily available data source to inform an expert about the number of 25 year old males in this geographic region.

By inspecting the data set, it is clear to the expert that there is at least one 25 year old male in the population, but the expert does not know if there are more.  So, without any additional knowledge, the expert assumes there are no more, such that the record in the data set is unique.  Based on this observation, the expert recommends removing this record from the data set.  In doing so, the expert has made a conservative decision with respect to the uniqueness of the record.

In the previous example, the expert provided a solution (i.e., removing a record from a dataset) to achieve de-identification, but this is one of many possible solutions that an expert could offer.  In practice, an expert may provide the covered entity with multiple alternative strategies, based on scientific or statistical principles, to mitigate risk.

Figure 4. Relationship between uniques in the data set and the broader population, as well as the degree to which linkage can be achieved.

The expert may consider different measures of “risk,” depending on the concern of the organization looking to disclose information.  The expert will attempt to determine which record in the data set is the most vulnerable to identification.  However, in certain instances, the expert may not know which particular record to be disclosed will be most vulnerable for identification purposes.  In this case, the expert may attempt to compute risk from several different perspectives. 

What are the approaches by which an expert mitigates the risk of identification of an individual in health information?

The Privacy Rule does not require a particular approach to mitigate, or reduce to very small, identification risk.  The following provides a survey of potential approaches.  An expert may find all or only one appropriate for a particular project, or may use another method entirely.

If an expert determines that the risk of identification is greater than very small, the expert may modify the information to mitigate the identification risk to that level, as required by the de-identification standard. In general, the expert will adjust certain features or values in the data to ensure that unique, identifiable elements no longer, or are not expected to, exist.  Some of the methods described below have been reviewed by the Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology 16 , which was referenced in the original preamble guidance to the Privacy Rule de-identification standard and recently revised.

Several broad classes of methods can be applied to protect data.  An overarching common goal of such approaches is to balance disclosure risk against data utility. 17   If one approach results in very small identity disclosure risk but also a set of data with little utility, another approach can be considered.  However, data utility does not determine when the de-identification standard of the Privacy Rule has been met.

Table 2 illustrates the application of such methods. In this example, we refer to columns as “features” about patients (e.g., Age and Gender) and rows as “records” of patients (e.g., the first and second rows correspond to records on two different patients).

Table 2. An example of protected health information.

A first class of identification risk mitigation methods corresponds to suppression techniques. These methods remove or eliminate certain features about the data prior to dissemination.  Suppression of an entire feature may be performed if a substantial quantity of records is considered as too risky (e.g., removal of the ZIP Code feature).  Suppression may also be performed on individual records, deleting records entirely if they are deemed too risky to share.  This can occur when a record is clearly very distinguishing (e.g., the only individual within a county that makes over $500,000 per year).   Alternatively, suppression of specific values within a record may be performed, such as when a particular value is deemed too risky (e.g., “President of the local university”, or ages or ZIP codes that may be unique).  Table 3 illustrates this last type of suppression by showing how specific values of features in Table 2 might be suppressed (i.e., black shaded cells).

Table 3. A version of Table 2 with suppressed patient values.

A second class of methods that can be applied for risk mitigation are based on generalization (sometimes referred to as abbreviation) of the information.  These methods transform data into more abstract representations.  For instance, a five-digit ZIP Code may be generalized to a four-digit ZIP Code, which in turn may be generalized to a three-digit ZIP Code, and onward so as to disclose data with lesser degrees of granularity.  Similarly, the age of a patient may be generalized from one- to five-year age groups. Table 4 illustrates how generalization (i.e., gray shaded cells) might be applied to the information in Table 2.

Table 4. A version of Table 2 with generalized patient values.

A third class of methods that can be applied for risk mitigation corresponds to perturbation .  In this case, specific values are replaced with equally specific, but different, values.  For instance, a patient’s age may be reported as a random value within a 5-year window of the actual age.  Table 5 illustrates how perturbation (i.e., gray shaded cells) might be applied to Table 2.  Notice that every age is within +/- 2 years of the original age.  Similarly, the final digit in each ZIP Code is within +/- 3 of the original ZIP Code.

Table 5. A version of Table 2 with randomized patient values.

In practice, perturbation is performed to maintain statistical properties about the original data, such as mean or variance.

The application of a method from one class does not necessarily preclude the application of a method from another class.  For instance, it is common to apply generalization and suppression to the same data set.

Using such methods, the expert will prove that the likelihood an undesirable event (e.g., future identification of an individual) will occur is very small.  For instance, one example of a data protection model that has been applied to health information is the k -anonymity principle. 18 , 19   In this model, “ k ” refers to the number of people to which each disclosed record must correspond.  In practice, this correspondence is assessed using the features that could be reasonably applied by a recipient to identify a patient.  Table 6 illustrates an application of generalization and suppression methods to achieve 2-anonymity with respect to the Age, Gender, and ZIP Code columns in Table 2.  The first two rows (i.e., shaded light gray) and last two rows (i.e., shaded dark gray) correspond to patient records with the same combination of generalized and suppressed values for Age, Gender, and ZIP Code.  Notice that Gender has been suppressed completely (i.e., black shaded cell).

Table 6, as well as a value of k equal to 2, is meant to serve as a simple example for illustrative purposes only.  Various state and federal agencies define policies regarding small cell counts (i.e., the number of people corresponding to the same combination of features) when sharing tabular, or summary, data. 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27   However, OCR does not designate a universal value for k that covered entities should apply to protect health information in accordance with the de-identification standard.  The value for k should be set at a level that is appropriate to mitigate risk of identification by the anticipated recipient of the data set. 28

Table 6. A version of Table 2 that is 2-anonymized.

As can be seen, there are many different disclosure risk reduction techniques that can be applied to health information. However, it should be noted that there is no particular method that is universally the best option for every covered entity and health information set.  Each method has benefits and drawbacks with respect to expected applications of the health information, which will be distinct for each covered entity and each intended recipient.  The determination of which method is most appropriate for the information will be assessed by the expert on a case-by-case basis and will be guided by input of the covered entity.

Finally, as noted in the preamble to the Privacy Rule, the expert may also consider the technique of limiting distribution of records through a data use agreement or restricted access agreement in which the recipient agrees to limits on who can use or receive the data, or agrees not to attempt identification of the subjects.  Of course, the specific details of such an agreement are left to the discretion of the expert and covered entity.

Can an Expert determine a code derived from PHI is de-identified?

There has been confusion about what constitutes a code and how it relates to PHI.  For clarification, our guidance is similar to that provided by the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST) 29 , which states:

“ De-identified information can be re-identified (rendered distinguishable) by using a code, algorithm, or pseudonym that is assigned to individual records.  The code, algorithm, or pseudonym should not be derived from other related information* about the individual, and the means of re-identification should only be known by authorized parties and not disclosed to anyone without the authority to re-identify records.  A common de-identification technique for obscuring PII [Personally Identifiable Information] is to use a one-way cryptographic function, also known as a hash function, on the PII.

*This is not intended to exclude the application of cryptographic hash functions to the information.”

In line with this guidance from NIST, a covered entity may disclose codes derived from PHI as part of a de-identified data set if an expert determines that the data meets the de-identification requirements at §164.514(b)(1).  The re-identification provision in §164.514(c) does not preclude the transformation of PHI into values derived by cryptographic hash functions using the expert determination method, provided the keys associated with such functions are not disclosed, including to the recipients of the de-identified information.

Must a covered entity use a data use agreement when sharing de-identified data to satisfy the Expert Determination Method?

No. The Privacy Rule does not limit how a covered entity may disclose information that has been de-identified.  However, a covered entity may require the recipient of de-identified information to enter into a data use agreement to access files with known disclosure risk, such as is required for release of a limited data set under the Privacy Rule.  This agreement may contain a number of clauses designed to protect the data, such as prohibiting re-identification. 30 Of course, the use of a data use agreement does not substitute for any of the specific requirements of the Expert Determination Method. Further information about data use agreements can be found on the OCR website. 31   Covered entities may make their own assessments whether such additional oversight is appropriate.

In §164.514(b), the Safe Harbor method for de-identification is defined as follows:

(R) Any other unique identifying number, characteristic, or code, except as permitted by paragraph (c) of this section; and

When can ZIP codes be included in de-identified information?

Covered entities may include the first three digits of the ZIP code if, according to the current publicly available data from the Bureau of the Census: (1) The geographic unit formed by combining all ZIP codes with the same three initial digits contains more than 20,000 people; or (2) the initial three digits of a ZIP code for all such geographic units containing 20,000 or fewer people is changed to 000. This means that the initial three digits of ZIP codes may be included in de-identified information except when the ZIP codes contain the initial three digits listed in the Table below.  In those cases, the first three digits must be listed as 000.

OCR published a final rule on August 14, 2002, that modified certain standards in the Privacy Rule.  The preamble to this final rule identified the initial three digits of ZIP codes, or ZIP code tabulation areas (ZCTAs), that must change to 000 for release. 67 FR 53182, 53233-53234 (Aug. 14, 2002)).

Utilizing 2000 Census data, the following three-digit ZCTAs have a population of 20,000 or fewer persons. To produce a de-identified data set utilizing the safe harbor method, all records with three-digit ZIP codes corresponding to these three-digit ZCTAs must have the ZIP code changed to 000. Covered entities should not, however, rely upon this listing or the one found in the August 14, 2002 regulation if more current data has been published .

The 17 restricted ZIP codes are:

The Department notes that these three-digit ZIP codes are based on the five-digit ZIP Code Tabulation Areas created by the Census Bureau for the 2000 Census. This new methodology also is briefly described below, as it will likely be of interest to all users of data tabulated by ZIP code. The Census Bureau will not be producing data files containing U.S. Postal Service ZIP codes either as part of the Census 2000 product series or as a post Census 2000 product. However, due to the public’s interest in having statistics tabulated by ZIP code, the Census Bureau has created a new statistical area called the Zip Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA) for Census 2000. The ZCTAs were designed to overcome the operational difficulties of creating a well-defined ZIP code area by using Census blocks (and the addresses found in them) as the basis for the ZCTAs. In the past, there has been no correlation between ZIP codes and Census Bureau geography. Zip codes can cross State, place, county, census tract, block group, and census block boundaries. The geographic designations the Census Bureau uses to tabulate data are relatively stable over time. For instance, census tracts are only defined every ten years. In contrast, ZIP codes can change more frequently. Because of the ill-defined nature of ZIP code boundaries, the Census Bureau has no file (crosswalk) showing the relationship between US Census Bureau geography and U.S. Postal Service ZIP codes.

ZCTAs are generalized area representations of U.S. Postal Service (USPS) ZIP code service areas. Simply put, each one is built by aggregating the Census 2000 blocks, whose addresses use a given ZIP code, into a ZCTA which gets that ZIP code assigned as its ZCTA code. They represent the majority USPS five-digit ZIP code found in a given area. For those areas where it is difficult to determine the prevailing five-digit ZIP code, the higher-level three-digit ZIP code is used for the ZCTA code. For further information, go to: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo-areas/zctas.html

The Bureau of the Census provides information regarding population density in the United States.  Covered entities are expected to rely on the most current publicly available Bureau of Census data regarding ZIP codes. This information can be downloaded from, or queried at, the American Fact Finder website (http://factfinder.census.gov).  As of the publication of this guidance, the information can be extracted from the detailed tables of the “Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data” files under the “Decennial Census” section of the website. The information is derived from the Decennial Census and was last updated in 2000.  It is expected that the Census Bureau will make data available from the 2010 Decennial Census in the near future.  This guidance will be updated when the Census makes new information available.

May parts or derivatives of any of the listed identifiers be disclosed consistent with the Safe Harbor Method?

No.  For example, a data set that contained patient initials, or the last four digits of a Social Security number, would not meet the requirement of the Safe Harbor method for de-identification.

What are examples of dates that are not permitted according to the Safe Harbor Method?

Elements of dates that are not permitted for disclosure include the day, month, and any other information that is more specific than the year of an event.  For instance, the date “January 1, 2009” could not be reported at this level of detail. However, it could be reported in a de-identified data set as “2009”.

Many records contain dates of service or other events that imply age.  Ages that are explicitly stated, or implied, as over 89 years old must be recoded as 90 or above.  For example, if the patient’s year of birth is 1910 and the year of healthcare service is reported as 2010, then in the de-identified data set the year of birth should be reported as “on or before 1920.”  Otherwise, a recipient of the data set would learn that the age of the patient is approximately 100.

Can dates associated with test measures for a patient be reported in accordance with Safe Harbor?

No. Dates associated with test measures, such as those derived from a laboratory report, are directly related to a specific individual and relate to the provision of health care. Such dates are protected health information.  As a result, no element of a date (except as described in 3.3. above) may be reported to adhere to Safe Harbor. 

What constitutes “any other unique identifying number, characteristic, or code” with respect to the Safe Harbor method of the Privacy Rule?

This category corresponds to any unique features that are not explicitly enumerated in the Safe Harbor list (A-Q), but could be used to identify a particular individual.  Thus, a covered entity must ensure that a data set stripped of the explicitly enumerated identifiers also does not contain any of these unique features.  The following are examples of such features:

Identifying Number There are many potential identifying numbers.  For example, the preamble to the Privacy Rule at 65 FR 82462, 82712 (Dec. 28, 2000) noted that “Clinical trial record numbers are included in the general category of ‘any other unique identifying number, characteristic, or code.’

Identifying Code A code corresponds to a value that is derived from a non-secure encoding mechanism.  For instance, a code derived from a secure hash function without a secret key (e.g., “salt”) would be considered an identifying element.  This is because the resulting value would be susceptible to compromise by the recipient of such data. As another example, an increasing quantity of electronic medical record and electronic prescribing systems assign and embed barcodes into patient records and their medications.  These barcodes are often designed to be unique for each patient, or event in a patient’s record, and thus can be easily applied for tracking purposes.  See the discussion of re-identification.

Identifying Characteristic A characteristic may be anything that distinguishes an individual and allows for identification.  For example, a unique identifying characteristic could be the occupation of a patient, if it was listed in a record as “current President of State University.”

Many questions have been received regarding what constitutes “any other unique identifying number, characteristic or code” in the Safe Harbor approach, §164.514(b)(2)(i)(R), above.  Generally, a code or other means of record identification that is derived from PHI would have to be removed from data de-identified following the safe harbor method.  To clarify what must be removed under (R), the implementation specifications at §164.514(c) provide an exception with respect to “re-identification” by the covered entity.  The objective of the paragraph is to permit covered entities to assign certain types of codes or other record identification to the de-identified information so that it may be re-identified by the covered entity at some later date. Such codes or other means of record identification assigned by the covered entity are not considered direct identifiers that must be removed under (R) if the covered entity follows the directions provided in §164.514(c).

What is “actual knowledge” that the remaining information could be used either alone or in combination with other information to identify an individual who is a subject of the information?

In the context of the Safe Harbor method, actual knowledge means clear and direct knowledge that the remaining information could be used, either alone or in combination with other information, to identify an individual who is a subject of the information.  This means that a covered entity has actual knowledge if it concludes that the remaining information could be used to identify the individual.  The covered entity, in other words, is aware that the information is not actually de-identified information.

The following examples illustrate when a covered entity would fail to meet the “actual knowledge” provision.

Example 1: Revealing Occupation Imagine a covered entity was aware that the occupation of a patient was listed in a record as “former president of the State University.”  This information in combination with almost any additional data – like age or state of residence – would clearly lead to an identification of the patient.  In this example, a covered entity would not satisfy the de-identification standard by simply removing the enumerated identifiers in §164.514(b)(2)(i) because the risk of identification is of a nature and degree that a covered entity must have concluded that the information could identify the patient.  Therefore, the data would not have satisfied the de-identification standard’s Safe Harbor method unless the covered entity made a sufficient good faith effort to remove the ‘‘occupation’’ field from the patient record.

Example 2: Clear Familial Relation Imagine a covered entity was aware that the anticipated recipient, a researcher who is an employee of the covered entity, had a family member in the data (e.g., spouse, parent, child, or sibling). In addition, the covered entity was aware that the data would provide sufficient context for the employee to recognize the relative.  For instance, the details of a complicated series of procedures, such as a primary surgery followed by a set of follow-up surgeries and examinations, for a person of a certain age and gender, might permit the recipient to comprehend that the data pertains to his or her relative’s case.  In this situation, the risk of identification is of a nature and degree that the covered entity must have concluded that the recipient could clearly and directly identify the individual in the data.  Therefore, the data would not have satisfied the de-identification standard’s Safe Harbor method.

Example 3: Publicized Clinical Event Rare clinical events may facilitate identification in a clear and direct manner.  For instance, imagine the information in a patient record revealed that a patient gave birth to an unusually large number of children at the same time.  During the year of this event, it is highly possible that this occurred for only one individual in the hospital (and perhaps the country).  As a result, the event was reported in the popular media, and the covered entity was aware of this media exposure.  In this case, the risk of identification is of a nature and degree that the covered entity must have concluded that the individual subject of the information could be identified by a recipient of the data.  Therefore, the data would not have satisfied the de-identification standard’s Safe Harbor method.

Example 4: Knowledge of a Recipient’s Ability Imagine a covered entity was told that the anticipated recipient of the data has a table or algorithm that can be used to identify the information, or a readily available mechanism to determine a patient’s identity.  In this situation, the covered entity has actual knowledge because it was informed outright that the recipient can identify a patient, unless it subsequently received information confirming that the recipient does not in fact have a means to identify a patient.  Therefore, the data would not have satisfied the de-identification standard’s Safe Harbor method.

If a covered entity knows of specific studies about methods to re-identify health information or use de-identified health information alone or in combination with other information to identify an individual, does this necessarily mean a covered entity has actual knowledge under the Safe Harbor method?

No.  Much has been written about the capabilities of researchers with certain analytic and quantitative capacities to combine information in particular ways to identify health information. 32 , 33 , 34 , 35   A covered entity may be aware of studies about methods to identify remaining information or using de-identified information alone or in combination with other information to identify an individual.  However, a covered entity’s mere knowledge of these studies and methods, by itself, does not mean it has “actual knowledge” that these methods would be used with the data it is disclosing.  OCR does not expect a covered entity to presume such capacities of all potential recipients of de-identified data.  This would not be consistent with the intent of the Safe Harbor method, which was to provide covered entities with a simple method to determine if the information is adequately de-identified.

Must a covered entity suppress all personal names, such as physician names, from health information for it to be designated as de-identified?

No. Only names of the individuals associated with the corresponding health information (i.e., the subjects of the records) and of their relatives, employers, and household members must be suppressed.  There is no explicit requirement to remove the names of providers or workforce members of the covered entity or business associate.  At the same time, there is also no requirement to retain such information in a de-identified data set.

Beyond the removal of names related to the patient, the covered entity would need to consider whether additional personal names contained in the data should be suppressed to meet the actual knowledge specification.  Additionally, other laws or confidentiality concerns may support the suppression of this information.

Must a covered entity use a data use agreement when sharing de-identified data to satisfy the Safe Harbor Method?

No. The Privacy Rule does not limit how a covered entity may disclose information that has been de-identified.  However, nothing prevents a covered entity from asking a recipient of de-identified information to enter into a data use agreement, such as is required for release of a limited data set under the Privacy Rule.  This agreement may prohibit re-identification. Of course, the use of a data use agreement does not substitute for any of the specific requirements of the Safe Harbor method. Further information about data use agreements can be found on the OCR website. 36   Covered entities may make their own assessments whether such additional oversight is appropriate.

Must a covered entity remove protected health information from free text fields to satisfy the Safe Harbor Method?

PHI may exist in different types of data in a multitude of forms and formats in a covered entity.  This data may reside in highly structured database tables, such as billing records. Yet, it may also be stored in a wide range of documents with less structure and written in natural language, such as discharge summaries, progress notes, and laboratory test interpretations.  These documents may vary with respect to the consistency and the format employed by the covered entity.

The de-identification standard makes no distinction between data entered into standardized fields and information entered as free text (i.e., structured and unstructured text) -- an identifier listed in the Safe Harbor standard must be removed regardless of its location in a record if it is recognizable as an identifier.

Whether additional information must be removed falls under the actual knowledge provision; the extent to which the covered entity has actual knowledge that residual information could be used to individually identify a patient. Clinical narratives in which a physician documents the history and/or lifestyle of a patient are information rich and may provide context that readily allows for patient identification.

Medical records are comprised of a wide range of structured and unstructured (also known as “free text”) documents.  In structured documents, it is relatively clear which fields contain the identifiers that must be removed following the Safe Harbor method.  For instance, it is simple to discern when a feature is a name or a Social Security Number, provided that the fields are appropriately labeled.  However, many researchers have observed that identifiers in medical information are not always clearly labeled. 37 . 38 As such, in some electronic health record systems it may be difficult to discern what a particular term or phrase corresponds to (e.g., is 5/97 a date or a ratio?).  It also is important to document when fields are derived from the Safe Harbor listed identifiers.  For instance, if a field corresponds to the first initials of names, then this derivation should be noted.  De-identification is more efficient and effective when data managers explicitly document when a feature or value pertains to identifiers.  Health Level 7 (HL7) and the International Standards Organization (ISO) publish best practices in documentation and standards that covered entities may consult in this process.

Example Scenario 1 The free text field of a patient’s medical record notes that the patient is the Executive Vice President of the state university.  The covered entity must remove this information.

Example Scenario 2 The intake notes for a new patient include the stand-alone notation, “Newark, NJ.”  It is not clear whether this relates to the patient’s address, the location of the patient’s previous health care provider, the location of the patient’s recent auto collision, or some other point.  The phrase may be retained in the data.

Glossary of terms used in Guidance Regarding Methods for De-identification of Protected Health Information in Accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule.  Note: some of these terms are paraphrased from the regulatory text; please see the HIPAA Rules for actual definitions.

Read the Full Guidance

Comments & Suggestions

In an effort to make this guidance a useful tool for HIPAA covered entities and business associates, we welcome and appreciate your sending us any feedback or suggestions to improve this guidance. You may submit a comment by sending an e-mail to [email protected] . 

Read more on the Workshop on the HIPAA Privacy Rule's De-Identification Standard

Acknowledgements

OCR gratefully acknowledges the significant contributions made by Bradley Malin, PhD, to the development of this guidance, through both organizing the 2010 workshop and synthesizing the concepts and perspectives in the document itself.  OCR also thanks the 2010 workshop panelists for generously providing their expertise and recommendations to the Department.

Disclaimer Policy: Links with this icon ( ) mean that you are leaving the HHS website.

• The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cannot guarantee the accuracy of a non-federal website.
• Linking to a non-federal website does not mean that HHS or its employees endorse the sponsors, information, or products presented on the website. HHS links outside of itself to provide you with further information.
• You will be bound by the destination website's privacy policy and/or terms of service when you follow the link.
• HHS is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on private websites.

For more information on HHS's web notification policies, see Website Disclaimers .

Helping Someone with an Eating Disorder

• Anorexia Nervosa: Symptoms, Causes, and Treatment
• Bulimia Nervosa: Signs, Symptoms, and Treatment
• Orthorexia Nervosa: Signs, Symptoms, and Treatment

Binge Eating Disorder

• Body Shaming: The Effects and How to Overcome it
• Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT): What it is, How it Helps

Body Dysmorphic Disorder (BDD)

• Online Therapy: Is it Right for You?
• Mental Health
• Health & Wellness
• Children & Family
• Relationships

Are you or someone you know in crisis?

• Bipolar Disorder
• Eating Disorders
• Grief & Loss
• Personality Disorders
• PTSD & Trauma
• Schizophrenia
• Therapy & Medication
• Exercise & Fitness
• Healthy Eating
• Well-being & Happiness
• Weight Loss
• Work & Career
• Illness & Disability
• Heart Health
• Learning Disabilities
• Family Caregiving
• Teen Issues
• Communication
• Emotional Intelligence
• Love & Friendship
• Domestic Abuse
• Healthy Aging
• Alzheimer’s Disease & Dementia
• End of Life
• Meet Our Team

How do I begin recovery from an eating disorder?

Reach out for support, getting treatment for an eating disorder, self-help tip 1: learn healthier ways to cope with emotional pain, tip 2: develop a balanced relationship with food, tip 3: learn to accept and love yourself as you are, tip 4: avoid relapse, eating disorder treatment and recovery.

Ready to begin recovery from anorexia, bulimia, or another eating disorder? These tips can help you start recovery and develop true self-confidence.

The inner voices of anorexia and bulimia whisper that you’ll never be happy until you lose weight, that your worth is measured by how you look. But the truth is that happiness and self-esteem come from loving yourself for who you truly are—and that’s only possible with recovery.

The road to recovery from an eating disorder starts with admitting you have a problem. This admission can be tough, especially if you’re still clinging to the belief—even in the back of your mind—that weight loss is the key to your happiness, confidence, and success. Even when you finally understand this isn’t true, old habits are still hard to break.

The good news is that the behaviors you’ve learned can also be unlearned. Just as anyone can develop an eating disorder, so too, anyone can get better. However, overcoming an eating disorder is about more than giving up unhealthy eating behaviors. It’s also about learning new ways to cope with emotional pain and rediscovering who you are beyond your eating habits, weight, and body image.

True recovery from an eating disorder involves learning to:

• Listen to your feelings.
• Listen to your body.
• Accept yourself.
• Love yourself.

This may seem like a lot to tackle, but just remember that you’re not alone. Help is out there and recovery is within your reach. With the right support and guidance, you can break free from your eating disorder’s destructive pattern, regain your health, and find the joy in life again.

Speak to a Licensed Therapist

BetterHelp is an online therapy service that matches you to licensed, accredited therapists who can help with depression, anxiety, relationships, and more. Take the assessment and get matched with a therapist in as little as 48 hours.

Once you’ve decided to make a change, opening up about the problem is an important step on the road to recovery. It can feel scary or embarrassing to seek help for an eating disorder, so it’s important to choose someone who will be supportive and truly listen without judging you or rejecting you. This could be a close friend or family member or a youth leader, teacher, or school counselor you trust. Or you may be more comfortable confiding in a therapist or doctor.

Choose the right time and place. There are no hard and fast rules for telling someone about your eating disorder. But be mindful about choosing the right time and place—ideally somewhere private where you won’t be rushed or interrupted.

Starting the conversation. This can be the hardest part. One way to start is by simply saying, “I’ve got something important to tell you. It’s difficult for me to talk about this, so it would mean a lot if you’d be patient and hear me out.” From there, you may want to talk about when your eating disorder started, the feelings, thoughts, and behaviors involved, and how the disorder has impacted you.

Be patient. Your friend or family member will have their own emotional reaction to learning about your eating disorder. They may feel shocked, helpless, confused, sad, or even angry. They may not know how to respond or help you. Give them time to digest what you’re telling them. It’s also important to educate them about your specific eating disorder.

Be specific about how the person can best support you. For example, you may want them to help you find treatment, accompany you to see a doctor, check in with you regularly about how you’re feeling, or find some other way of supporting your recovery (without turning into the food police).

Eating disorder support groups

While family and friends can be a huge help in providing support, you may also want to join an eating disorder support group. They provide a safe environment where you can talk freely about your eating disorder and get advice and support from people who know what you’re going through.

There are many types of eating disorder support groups. Some are led by professional therapists, while others are moderated by trained volunteers or people who have recovered from an eating disorder. You can find online anorexia and bulimia support groups, chat rooms, and forums. These can be particularly helpful if you’re not ready to seek face-to-face help or you don’t have a support group in your area.

For help finding an eating disorder support group:

• Ask your doctor or therapist for a referral.
• Call local hospitals and universities.
• Call local eating disorder centers and clinics.
• Visit your school’s counseling center.
• Call a helpline listed below.

While there are a variety of different treatment options available for those struggling with eating disorders, it is important to find the treatment, or combination of treatments, that works best for you.

Effective treatment should address more than just your symptoms and destructive eating habits. It should also address the root causes of the problem—the emotional triggers that lead to disordered eating and your difficulty coping with stress, anxiety, fear, sadness, or other uncomfortable emotions.

Step 1: Assemble your treatment team

Because eating disorders have serious emotional, medical, and nutritional consequences, it’s important to have a team of professionals that can address every aspect of your problem. As you search, focus on finding the right fit—professionals who make you feel comfortable, accepted, and safe.

To find an eating disorder treatment specialist in your area:

• Ask your primary care doctor for a referral.
• Check with your local hospitals or medical centers.
• Ask your school counselor or nurse.
• Call a helpline listed in the Get more help section below.

Step 2: Address health problems

Eating disorders can be deadly—and not just if you’re drastically underweight. Your health may be in danger, even if you only occasionally fast, binge, or purge, so it’s important to get a full medical evaluation. If the evaluation reveals health problems, they should take priority. Nothing is more important than your well-being. If you’re suffering from any life-threatening problem, you may need to be hospitalized in order to keep you safe.

Step 3: Make a long-term treatment plan

Once your health problems are under control, you and your treatment team can work on a long-term recovery plan. Your treatment plan may include:

Individual or group therapy. Therapy can help you explore the issues underlying your eating disorder, improve your self-esteem, and learn healthy ways of responding to stress and emotional pain. Different therapists have different methods, so it is important to discuss with them your goals in working towards recovery.

Family therapy. Family therapy can help you and your family members explore how the eating disorder is affecting your relationships—and how various family dynamics may be contributing to the problem or impeding recovery. Together, you’ll work to improve communication, respect, and support.

Nutritional counseling. The goal of a nutritionist or dietician is to help you incorporate healthy eating behaviors into your everyday life. A nutritionist can’t change your habits overnight, but over a period of time you can learn to develop a healthier relationship with food.

Medical monitoring. Often, treatment will include regular monitoring by a medical doctor to make sure your health is not in danger. This may include regular weigh-ins, blood tests, and other health screenings.

Residential treatment. In rare cases, you may need more support than can be provided on an outpatient basis. Residential treatment programs offer around-the-clock care and monitoring to get you back on track. The goal is to get you stable enough to continue treatment at home.

Step 4: Learn self-help strategies

While seeking professional help is important, don’t underestimate your own role in recovery. The more motivated you are to understand why you developed an eating disorder, and to learn healthier coping skills, the quicker you will see change and healing. The following tips can help:

It may seem like eating disorders are all about food—after all, your rules and fears about dieting and weight have taken over your life. But food itself isn’t the real problem. Disordered eating is a coping mechanism for stress or other unpleasant emotions. You may refuse food to feel in control, binge for comfort, or purge to punish yourself, for example. But whatever need your eating disorder fulfills in your life, you can learn  healthier ways to cope with negative emotions and deal with life’s challenges.

The first step is figuring out what’s really going on inside. Are you upset about something? Depressed? Stressed out? Lonely? Is there an intense feeling you’re trying to avoid? Are you eating to calm down, comfort yourself, or to relieve boredom? Once you identify the emotion you’re experiencing, you can choose a positive alternative to starving or stuffing yourself.

Here are a few suggestions to get you started:

• Call a friend
• Listen to music
• Play with a pet
• Read a good book
• Take a walk
• Write in a journal
• Go to the movies
• Get out into nature
• Play a favorite game
• Do something helpful for someone else

Even though food itself is not the problem, developing a healthier relationship with it is essential to your recovery. Most people with eating disorders struggle with issues of control when it comes to food—often fluctuating between strict rules and chaos. The goal is to find a balance.

Let go of rigid eating rules. Strict rules about food and eating fuel eating disorders, so it’s important to replace them with healthier ones. For example, if you have a rule forbidding all desserts, change it into a less rigid guideline such as, “I won’t eat dessert every day.” You won’t gain weight by enjoying an occasional ice cream or cookie.

Don’t diet.  The more you restrict food, the more likely it is that you’ll become preoccupied, and even obsessed, with it. So instead of focusing on what you “shouldn’t” eat, focus on nutritious foods that will energize you and make your body strong. Think of food as fuel for your body. Your body knows when the tank is low, so listen to it. Eat when you’re truly hungry, then stop when you’re full.

Stick to a regular eating schedule. You may be used to skipping meals or fasting for long stretches. But when you starve yourself, food becomes all you think about. To avoid this preoccupation, try to eat every three hours. Plan ahead for meals and snacks, and don’t skip!

When you base your self-worth on physical appearance alone, you’re ignoring all the other qualities, accomplishments, and abilities that make you beautiful. Think about your friends and family members. Do they love you for the way you look or who you are? Chances are, your appearance ranks low on the list of what they love about you—and you probably feel the same about them. So why does it top your own list?

Placing too much importance on how you look leads to low self-esteem and insecurity. But you can learn to see yourself in a positive, balanced way:

Make a list of your positive qualities.  Think of all the things you like about yourself. Are you smart? Kind? Creative? Loyal? Funny? What would others say are your good qualities? Include your talents, skills, and achievements. Also, think about negative qualities you don’t   have.

Stop body checking. Pinching for fatness, continually weighing yourself, or trying on too-small clothes only magnifies a negative self-view and gives you a distorted image of what you really look like. We are all very bad at detecting visual changes in ourselves. Your goal right now is to learn to accept yourself—and that shouldn’t depend on a number on the scale or a perceived flaw you think you see in the mirror.

Avoid “fat talk.” It’s something many of us take part in without even noticing. Perhaps we make self-deprecating jokes about our appearance, criticize a celebrity for gaining a few pounds, or when we greet friends, we focus on how they look—their new outfit or newly toned physique, for example. But focusing on appearance—our own or others—only leads to feelings of body dissatisfaction. Instead of telling others, “You look great!” try focusing on something other than appearance, such as “You seem really happy!” And avoid spending time with people intent on judging others by their looks.

Challenge negative self-talk. We all have negative thoughts about our appearance from time to time. The important thing is not to base your self-worth on these thoughts. Instead, when you catch yourself being self-critical or pessimistic, stop and challenge the negative thought. Ask yourself what evidence you have to support the idea. What is the evidence against it? Just because you believe something, doesn’t mean it’s true.

Tips to improve your body image

Dress for yourself, not others. You should feel good in what you wear. Pick clothes that express your personality and make you feel comfortable and confident.

Stop comparing yourself to others. Even people without an eating disorder experience feelings of anxiety and inferiority when they compare themselves to others on social media. People exaggerate the positive aspects of their lives on Facebook, Instagram and the like, brushing over their flaws and the doubts and disappointments that we all experience. If necessary, take a break from social media —and toss the fashion magazines. Even when you realize that the images are pure Photoshopped fantasy, they can still trigger feelings of insecurity. Stay away until you’re confident they won’t undermine your self-acceptance.

Pamper your body. Instead of treating your body like the enemy, look at it as something precious. Pamper yourself with a massage, manicure, facial, a candlelight bath, or a scented lotion or perfume that makes you happy.

Stay active. While it’s important not to overdo it with exercise, staying active is good for both your mental and physical well-being. The key is to differentiate between compulsive exercise—which is rule-driven, weight-focused, and rigid—and healthy exercise that is rule-free, fun, and flexible. Focus on activities you enjoy and do them because they improve your mood, not because they might change how you look. Outdoor activities can be especially good at boosting your sense of well-being.

The work of eating disorder recovery doesn’t end once you’ve adopted healthier habits. It’s important to take steps to maintain your progress and prevent relapse.

Develop a solid support system. Surround yourself with people who support you and want to see you healthy and happy. Avoid people who drain your energy, encourage disordered eating behaviors, or make you feel bad about yourself.

Identify your “triggers.” Are you more likely to revert to your old, destructive behaviors during the holidays, exam week, or swimsuit season? Or are difficulties at work or in your relationship likely to trigger your disordered eating habits? Know what your early warning signs are, and have a plan for dealing with them, such as going to therapy more often or asking for extra support from family and friends.

Avoid pro-ana and pro-mia websites. Don’t visit websites that promote or glorify anorexia and bulimia. These sites are run by people who want excuses to continue down their destructive path. The “support” they offer is dangerous and will only get in the way of your recovery.

Keep a journal. Writing in a daily journal can help you keep tabs on your thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. If you notice that you’re slipping back into negative patterns, take action immediately.

Stick with your eating disorder treatment plan. Don’t neglect therapy or other components of your treatment, even if you’re doing better. Follow the recommendations of your treatment team.

Fill your life with positive activities. Make time for activities that bring you joy and fulfillment. Try something you’ve always wanted to do, develop a new skill, pick up a fun hobby, or volunteer in your community . The more rewarding your life, the less desire you’ll have to focus on food and weight.

If you do lapse, don’t beat yourself up. Recovery is a process—and that often involves setbacks. Don’t let feelings of guilt or shame derail your recovery, but think about how you’ll handle the same situation next time. Remember: One brief lapse doesn’t have to turn into a full-blown relapse.

Helplines and support

National Eating Disorders Association  or call 1-800-931-2237 (National Eating Disorders Association)

Beat Eating Disorders  or call 0345 643 1414 (Helpfinder)

Butterfly Foundation for Eating Disorders  or call 1800 33 4673 (National Eating Disorders Collaboration)

Service Provider Directory  or call 1-866-633-4220 (NEDIC)

More in Eating Disorders

Advice for parents, family members and friends offering support

Anorexia Nervosa

Signs, symptoms, causes, and treatment options for anorexia

Bulimia Nervosa

Signs, symptoms, treatment and self-help tips

Orthorexia Nervosa

How to recognize if your healthy eating has gone too far

Symptoms, treatment and help for compulsive overeating

Body Shaming

Improving your body image and achieving body acceptance

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT)

How it can help with anxiety, depression, PTSD, substance abuse, and more

Always focusing on your physical flaws? You may have BDD.

Professional therapy, done online

BetterHelp makes starting therapy easy. Take the assessment and get matched with a professional, licensed therapist.

Help us help others

Millions of readers rely on HelpGuide.org for free, evidence-based resources to understand and navigate mental health challenges. Please donate today to help us save, support, and change lives.