>>12959194>Why do people act like reading a journal article is some feat of genius. Even normies can read themanyone can read journal articles.
You'd have to know the field and be familiar with the experiments to interpret it/critique it properly, though.
I read upwards of 100 journal articles by 1st year grad school, but it wasn't until maybe 3rd year that I legitimately could "read" the papers properly- what I mean is, given a paper, I could tell you if it was groundbreaking, total crap, some experiments done well/not, etc.
Early on in your career, you read the paper top to bottom more or less.
Now I just go straight to figures and see what I interpret the data as, then go through results and methods for clarity, then read other parts of it if it seems interesting enough.
I hate how it's become the norm to find a paper that supports your viewpoint from the abstract/1 figure and thinks that means "science supports what I support, I win!" There is ALWAYS a paper that both supports and refutes a topic- it's all about the specifics/scientific consensus of the field. Worse is how many people post a random paper/result that totally doesn't say at all what they want it to say, but they sorta-interpret it as such, and go ham with logic jumps bigger than their mom's vagina gap
