The paper is two pages. Why aren't these people included as authors then...?
Turns out that it's basically what the paper says, but then goes into more detail about going into more detail. Worth at least a second pass :)
I agree. You can usually understand the general contributions and how they work at a high level pretty easily. But intuitively and deeply understanding a paper takes much more time from my experience. Again, YMMV.
I also have almost zero experience with analog haha! I'm going to be taking an intermediate course on analog circuits next semester. I'm interested in jumping into the field of analog hardeare security, so it's a necessary first step.
I recall watching a recent talk by Andrew Ng who mentioned that reading research papers is a key method in improving as deep learning specialist / data scientist, but that one should temper their expectations of knowledge acquisition. One might spend a Sunday trying to go deep into a paper, but at the end of the weekend that person may barely get much out of it. He even admits that sometimes it takes him a couple reads over a course of several sessions to fully grasp a new concept. Which isn't all that surprising given the information asymmetry between the authors and the reader.
In prose form: http://webarchiv.ethz.ch/digitalartweeks/web/uploads/DAWIntr...
In slide form: http://spaf.cerias.purdue.edu/classes/Popescu.pdf
"Incidentally, when you write a paper, you can expect most
reviewers (and readers) to make only one pass over it."
I understand reviewers are busy, but we depend on peer review to filter out bad or poorly-researched material. I don't think one pass is enough.
Obviously, so does the author.
The papers that make it past one pass get more scrutiny.
The review process is stochastic and leans towards reject by default.
Morals and civic duty aside, it's hard to blame reviewers for skimming or 'phoning it in' under such conditions. With all these subtle politics and screwy incentive structures, I'm unfortunately not surprised at all that science is having a replication crisis.
For a YC-compatible analogy: think of it as code review. Pure junk gets filtered out, but bugs inevitably remain.
Superficially the same idea, but it is for advising medical practitioners on how to apply research to their work. It goes about this by showing you how to find research, critique it, analyse it, use meta-research, and so on.
For somebody not in medicine, it had some transferable advice on how to use research in practice, but was mainly a detailed insight into how evidence-based medicine works. Highly recommended.
There should be a paper called "how to write useful headlines for your paper."
"first pass" "second pass" "third pass" should be replaced with unique, useful, preferably memorable headlines. For instance: "Quick scan" "Deeper but ignore details" and "Challenge every assumption in every statement"
Then you haven't wasted the attention those big bold headlines get.
Don't read most papers. Don't feel bad about not reading them, because in general they are terribly written.
Instead, read follow-on work which resynthesizes the ideas in these papers for a popular audience.
The site above ^^ has not launched yet, but should help alleviate the problem.
Bookmarked your site, looks interesting for this non-academic.
- How many papers do you read per week?
- How many hours you spent per week?