> This is a bit of a public secret, but quite widely researchers don't really trust articles anymore, if they ever did. Maybe some plot or dataset may give some insight and maybe some discussion has worthy information to ponder on. But mostly they're just some ads to put in a yet another funding application.
> It should be noted that there's sort of a "parallel reality" in academia behind the publication show.
So what should be the guidelines for someone who is not a researcher, but an engineer, and hopes to stay informed by reading relevant papers from a specific field. (You know the folks who should apply some of that in practice)
Depends on the field and purpose. First of all, academic papers tend to be quite hard to approach if you aren't in the field, even if the quality of the paper is good. Articles almost necessarily cater to a very specific audience and lots of background is assumed almost by necessity. Also papers are not usually read linearly, researchers learn to get the gist of paper in just a few glances if its close to their own fields, and sort of hop around to see if there's something "unexpected".
Also individual papers tend to focus on one very specific problem at a time. This is typically related to some actual larger "debate" and can be difficult to see if one's not familiar with the larger issue. Also especially conclusions tend to have quite heavy implied assumptions that are just generally accepted in the field.
I "stay informed" mostly by face-to-face discussions and emails and such. I don't read much papers myself, but many of my colleagues do and I just hear from them, or ask them if there is new stuff around related to something I'm pondering.
To get an overall view of "state-of-the-art" I'd recommend starting with masters' or doctoral theses. These typically require more elaborate presentation of the background and its typically put out in more readable terms with less assumptions of the readers background knowledge.
In some fields review articles are a good starting point as well, and they tend to briefly sum up the required background, but my understanding is that some fields don't do those much.
If you read "random" articles, I'd do a quick smell-test before digging in. See if code is available, ignore papers with clear hype in the abstract off-hand. You can also "navigate" the field by following citations, although this can be technically annoying as the publishing format is still tailored towards print, even though very few journals are actually printed anymore. If you hit a paywall, try sci-hub or just move on to a next one unless you're looking for something really specific.
If you have something more specific in mind, just email or call or go talk some researcher that looks to be doing something related to what you are looking for. Researchers tend to be quite eager to answer to the public of their stuff, and its seen as sort of a public service duty as well. Depends on the researcher quite a bit though. Maybe a good starting point would be somebody a bit "lower on the ladder". Maybe a postdoc or a PhD student (this depends on the country as well). Professors tend to be busier and actually may not be that up-to-date with their field (especially on technically detailed level) as they spend most of their time in administration and the funding ratrace.
Depending on the country you can just attend lectures too. At least in Finland university lectures are public by law (with some restrictions on e.g. practical lab stuff etc). You can see if the lecturer doesn't seem too busy after the lecture and just go and ask.
You can also just try go to conferences. They usually have a fee in theory, but I don't think you'll be turned away if you just browse around for posters or so, especially if its a smaller one. The fees are just sort of a scam (long and sad story) and researchers organizing the thing usually don't care about the fees at all.
> It should be noted that there's sort of a "parallel reality" in academia behind the publication show.
So what should be the guidelines for someone who is not a researcher, but an engineer, and hopes to stay informed by reading relevant papers from a specific field. (You know the folks who should apply some of that in practice)