Post #1924231

Richard M. Ransohoff, writing in the Washington Post: "Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health recently put out a guide for non-scientists who want to read research publications. I’m glad the school did that, if only because laypeople who say they are “doing their own research” often are actually relying on other laypeople trying to interpret the research. If you truly want to make your own judgments, the best way is to read the research yourself. That requires investing some time. My recommendations for reading and understanding the studies differ somewhat from the Hopkins recipe. Here’s my advice: Look at when and where the study was published. Check for signs that it appeared in a “predatory” journal, which is a journal that charges academics to publish and fails to provide peer review and other hallmarks of scientific legitimacy. Sometimes, unfortunately, you have to do research on the research. Take some time to really read. Scientific studies are not things you can skim or scroll through on your phone. In time, you will be able to get the gist of a study by reading the abstract — but not at first. Read the introduction. This tells you what knowledge gaps the researchers were trying to fill. Skip the methods and statistical analyses. These are highly technical and less useful for laypeople. Go to the discussion section. That’s where the authors will describe what they found and what they think it means. Read the limitations section. It’s important, because scientists and their academic editors care deeply about their work not being misunderstood or exaggerated." ---So far Ransohoff--- In other words: DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH by actually reading actual research studies, not some news story and NOT just gabbing away at a coffee shop with your pals