Memory Updating

Getting the most out of reading a scientific paper!

Adapted from Dr. Rochelle Hines. This should help you create an annotated bibliography: a short summary of a research article and what it means. The goal is to let you practice organizing and interpreting material from research articles. Breaking a complex article down into its component parts will help you better interpret and understand it; it takes an overwhelming task and breaks it into manageable bites.

Make sure to answer all questions in your own words! You’re interpreting the article, so make sure you’re paraphrasing instead of plagiarizing. I’ve included a quick refresher of what counts as plagiarism at the end of this assignment.

Pay attention to each part of the question! For instance, look at the example in the Vocabulary and Jargon section: you need the term, the full spelling (if it’s an acronym), and a definition (in your own words!) of what that term means.

Vocabulary and Jargon

  1. As you’re reading through the article, write down any major terms and their definitions. If the article uses an acronym, write it here and spell it out (e.g. MRI: Magnetic Resonance Imaging; using giant electromagnets to image the brain in 3D). Also, if you had to google it, define it here.

Looking at the Introduction Section

  1. Identify the big question. This is more than just “What is this paper about?” but also “What broader problem is the entire field trying to solve?”. What are we trying to understand that this paper hopes to discover?
  2. Summarize the background context of the paper in five sentences or less by answering the following:
    1. What work has been done before in this field to answer the big question? (e.g., what techniques have they used, has it only been on one aspect of the big picture?)
    2. What are the limitations of that work? (Do previously used techniques have limitations? what about confounds of previous research?)
    3. How does this research address those previous limitations?

Looking at the Methods and Results Sections

  1. Identify the specific research question(s). What exactly are the authors trying to answer with their research? (What do they hypothesize?)
  2. Identify the approach. What general technical approaches do the authors use to answer the specific question(s) (EEG, fMRI, genetics assays, questionnaires, etc.)? You don’t need to list out each step of the method, but give a general description of the approach.
  3. How did the researchers test their hypothesis?
    1. What type of study did they use? This can be an experiment, quasi-experiment, or descriptive/correlational study. If they used more than one, or used a mixed method, list out each.
    2. What type of statistical analysis (or analyses) did they use (ANOVA, correlation, t-tests, behavioral equation modelling, factor analysis, etc.)?
    3. List out all of the variables examined in the study. Identify whether they were IVs, DVs, or variables of interest (this depends on the study type!).
    4. How were each of the variables measured specifically (questionnaires, specific screening tests, response times, potassium channel activation, etc.)?
    5. Look at the figures depicting data, and answer the following:
      1. Paraphrase the major point of each figure (keep it brief! always look at the text under each figure!).
      2. Determine if the results in the figures answer the research question(s). How do they relate?

Looking at the Conclusion/Discussion/Interpretation Sections.

  1. Read through the final section of the article, and answer the following:
    1. What do the authors think the results mean? What overall conclusions have they come up with? Remember, you need to paraphrase this as well!
    2. Do you agree with them? You don’t have to! If you think they’re making a big leap, then you should absolutely call them on it! Explain your reasoning.
    3. Come up with any alternative ways of interpreting the results. What else might they mean?
    4. Consider all the other factors that could have led to their results and answer the following:
      1. Do the authors identify any weaknesses in their own study?
      2. Do you see any weaknesses that the authors missed? (Don’t assume they’re infallible! It’s impossible to answer every possible confound – it’s why we repeat science from different directions). Think about the population they used, and the measures.
      3. What do they propose to do as a next step? What do they think future research should focus on?