IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0297034.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How, and why, science and health researchers read scientific (IMRAD) papers

Author

Listed:
  • Frances Shiely
  • Kerrie Gallagher
  • Seán R Millar

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of our study was to determine the order in which science and health researchers read scientific papers, their reasons for doing so and the perceived difficulty and perceived importance of each section. Study design and setting: An online survey open to science and health academics and researchers distributed via existing research networks, X (formerly Twitter), and LinkedIn. Results: Almost 90% of respondents self-declared to be experienced in reading research papers. 98.6% of the sample read the abstract first because it provides an overview of the paper and facilitates a decision on continuing to read on or not. Seventy-five percent perceived it to be the easiest to read and 62.4% perceived it to be very important (highest rank on a 5-point Likert scale). The majority of respondents did not read a paper in the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results And Discussion) format. Perceived difficulty and perceived importance influenced reading order. Conclusion: Science and health researchers do not typically read scientific and health research papers in IMRAD format. The more important a respondent perceives a section to be, the more likely they are to read it. The easier a section is perceived, the more likely it will be read. We present recommendations to those teaching the skill of writing scientific papers and reports.

Suggested Citation

  • Frances Shiely & Kerrie Gallagher & Seán R Millar, 2024. "How, and why, science and health researchers read scientific (IMRAD) papers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(1), pages 1-13, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0297034
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297034
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0297034
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0297034&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0297034?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0297034. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.