1. Read the abstract thoroughly
2. Skim the results
3. Read the conclusion
I'm only part kidding. The abstract will tell you if it's even relevant to your area of research and outline what they hope to accomplish. The results give you an idea how well it worked, then the conclusion ties it up nicely. By this point, you should be able to say "So-and-so did this, and it worked/didn't work". Then you can decide if it needs to be a short note in your "Prior work" section or if it deserves deeper re-reading.
Is it too silly to suggest that people check the status of of the authors and their institution or the importance of the journal that published the paper?
Sadly, this is pretty much done by the citation count bit. People that write quality papers were either scooped up by a quality institution, or could move to one. Good work is done at a lot of places, but its more visible when done at a famous place.
1. Read the abstract thoroughly 2. Skim the results 3. Read the conclusion
I'm only part kidding. The abstract will tell you if it's even relevant to your area of research and outline what they hope to accomplish. The results give you an idea how well it worked, then the conclusion ties it up nicely. By this point, you should be able to say "So-and-so did this, and it worked/didn't work". Then you can decide if it needs to be a short note in your "Prior work" section or if it deserves deeper re-reading.