【導讀】選工作實踐中的疑點，熱點，由一個小枝節(jié)，檢索較全的文獻，一般近期的20篇左右已經(jīng)相當多了。之所以不必在意3年以前的，是因為知識。更新非常快，且網(wǎng)上能查到的多為近幾年的全文。知道目前對這個問題的共同看法，和分歧。然后，擴展開，根據(jù)興趣和研究。去圖書館找他的文章看全文。逐步擴展自己的視野，構(gòu)建個人的專。有了一定的知識基礎(chǔ)以后，對于繁雜的文獻，要有個人的判斷。其新的方法或新結(jié)論，或注意作者觀點的改變，探究其原因。對于高質(zhì)量高水平的期刊，定期瀏覽，從面上了解學術(shù)進展和熱點，根據(jù)。無論是工作中的點滴發(fā)現(xiàn)，思想火花，都應(yīng)該寫下來。想到時，還能及時找到。載的目的是學習。做記錄，決不遺漏一期，直至今日。獨到的研究方案是不可能超越他人得到成功的。課題一哄而起的情況，但在我國似乎特別嚴重。能在重大問題上取得突破。MIT人工智能實驗室的教授和學生總結(jié)的如何讀論文，還不錯！AI論文含有摘要，其中可能有內(nèi)容。要進行第二階段了。

　　

【正文】 ections are, until we know what is there. Typical descriptive approaches in molecular biology are DNA sequencing and DNA microarray approaches. In biochemistry, one could regard xray crystallography as a descriptive endeavor. Comparative research often takes place when we are asking how general a finding is. Is it specific to my particular anism, or is it broadly applicable? A typical parative approach would be paring the sequence of a gene from one anism with that from the other anisms in which that gene is found. One example of this is the observation that the actin genes from humans and budding yeast are 89% identical and 96% similar. Analytical research generally takes place when we know enough to begin formulating hypotheses about how a system works, about how the parts are interconnected, and what the causal connections are. A typical analytical approach would be to devise two (or more) alternative hypotheses about how a system operates. These hypotheses would all be consistent with current knowledge about the system. Ideally, the approach would devise a set of experiments todistinguish among these hypotheses. A classic example is the MeselsonStahl experiment. Of course, many papers are a bination of these approaches. For instance, researchers might sequence a gene from their model anism。 pare its sequence to homologous genes from other anisms。 use this parison to devise a hypothesis for the function of the gene product。 and test this hypothesis by making a sitedirected change in the gene and asking how that affects the phenotype of the anism and/or the biochemical function of the gene product. Being aware that not all papers have the same approach can orient you towards recognizing the major questions that a paper addresses. What are these questions? In a wellwritten paper, as described above, the Introduction generally goes from the general to the specific, eventually framing a question or set of questions. This is a good starting place. In addition, the results of experiments usually raise additional questions, which the authors may attempt to answer. These questions usually bee evident only in the Results section. Back to Evaluating a paper b. What are the main conclusions of the paper? This question can often be answered in a preliminary way by studying the abstract of the paper. Here the authors highlight what they think are the key points. This is not enough, because abstracts often have severe space constraints, but it can serve as a starting point. Still, you need to read the paper with this question in mind. Back to Evaluating a paper c. What evidence supports those conclusions? Generally, you can get a pretty good idea about this from the Results section. The description of the findings points to the relevant tables and figures. This is easiest when there is one primary experiment to support a point. However, it is often the case that several different experiments or approaches bine to support a particular conclusion. For example, the first experiment might have several possible interpretations, and the later ones are designed to distinguish among these. In the ideal case, the Discussion begins with a section of the form Three lines of evidence provide support for the conclusion that... First, ...Second,... etc. However, difficulties can arise when the paper is poorly written (see above). The authors often do not present a concise summary of this type, leaving you to make it yourself. A skeptic might argue that in such cases the logical structure of the argument is weak and is omitted on purpose! In any case, you need to be sure that you understand the relationship between the data and the conclusions. Back to Evaluating a paper d. Do the data actually support the conclusions? One major advantage of doing this is that it helps you to evaluate whether the conclusion is sound. If we assume for the moment that the data are believable (see next section), it still might be the case that the data do not actually support the conclusion the authors wish to reach. There are at least two different ways this can happen: i. The logical connection between the data and the interpretation is not sound ii. There might be other interpretations that might be consistent with the data. One important aspect to look for is whether the authors take multiple approaches to answering a question. Do they have multiple lines of evidence, from different directions, supporting their conclusions? If there is only one line of evidence, it is more likely that it could be interpreted in a different way。 multiple approaches make the argument more persuasive. Another thing to look for is implicit or hidden assumptions used by the authors in interpreting their data. This can be hard to do, unless you understand the field thoroughly. Back to Evaluating a paper e. What is the quality of that evidence? This is the hardest question to answer, for novices and experts alike. At the same time, it is one of the most important skills to learn as a young scientist. It involves a major reorientation from being a relatively passive consumer of information and ideas to an active producer and critical evaluator of them. This is not easy and takes years to master. Beginning scientists often wonder, Who am I to question these authorities? After all the paper was published in a top journal, so the authors must have a high standing, and the work must have received a critical review by experts. Unfortunately, that39。s not always the case. In any case, developing your ability to evaluate evidence is one of the hardest and most important aspects of learning to be a critical scientist and reader. How can you evaluate the evidence? First, you need to understand thoroughly the methods used in the experiments. Often these are described poor