s***e
发帖数: 830 | 1 我知道的有两种顺序：
1. 就是文章的顺序，先读introduction，再model，results，conclusion。
2. 跳过introduction，直接model，results.觉得好再看introduction。
我一般是第一种顺序，以为我更喜欢在深入研究一篇paper之前，弄清楚paper的key
assumptions, main results, and contribution to the literature, 然后再决定要
不要细读。
可是我看introduction很慢，总是不自觉的想背下来key assumptions, main results,
and contribution to the literature。感觉很耽误时间。不知道大家都什么看法？
都是什么顺序读的paper？能不能说说利弊？
还有就是一篇理论的paper我要2-3天才能复制完。这样算慢么？ |
x***e
发帖数: 30 | 2 It could be very personal. My boss suggests that we look at the tables first
right after the abstract to form our own understanding of what author(s)
trying to test and what he/she trying measure and how ourselves would do in
the given topic. Then come back to read the part that we think it is
important. We do a lot of empirical piece. I expect that theoretical
researcher would do differently. |
s*****w
发帖数: 2065 | 3 nice!
this one should be marked!
first
in
【在 x***e 的大作中提到】
: It could be very personal. My boss suggests that we look at the tables first
: right after the abstract to form our own understanding of what author(s)
: trying to test and what he/she trying measure and how ourselves would do in
: the given topic. Then come back to read the part that we think it is
: important. We do a lot of empirical piece. I expect that theoretical
: researcher would do differently.
|
s***e
发帖数: 830 | 4 yes, I followed that rule, and it applies pretty well.
【在 s*****w 的大作中提到】
: nice!
: this one should be marked!
:
: first
: in
|
r********e
发帖数: 100 | 5 I really enjoy this post. |
k*******g
发帖数: 263 | 6 我看paper的顺序：先看introduction，再看model，再看results。
看了introduction以后，脑子里会自己想想如果是自己来实现这个contribution的话，
应该怎么去model。
看model的时候，脑子里会自己想想这个model还能link到除开作者所宣称的
constribution之外的哪些东西。
最后看empirical results，看看作者是否能够自圆其说，有哪些empirical
results可能暗含了哪些是跟model/methodology相关的问题。 |
s***r
发帖数: 1121 | 7 This is for empirical papers only.
Theoretical papers are totally different.
Actually, French says that the way he reads the paper is like this:
1. Look at abstract.
2. Stop and then think how the issued would be approaced (either modeling or
empirical test design) if you wrote this paper.
3. Then read introduction and the paper.
4. Ask questions: are there anything that you did not think of? Anything
that makes you "feel freshed"... Anything you can improve?
first
in
【在 x***e 的大作中提到】
: It could be very personal. My boss suggests that we look at the tables first
: right after the abstract to form our own understanding of what author(s)
: trying to test and what he/she trying measure and how ourselves would do in
: the given topic. Then come back to read the part that we think it is
: important. We do a lot of empirical piece. I expect that theoretical
: researcher would do differently.
|
k*******g
发帖数: 263 | 8 好像跟我的方法类似？不过有一定难度，估计在初期看某个领域内的论文的时候是做不
到的，得有了一定的阅读论文经验以后才能做到。
or
【在 s***r 的大作中提到】
: This is for empirical papers only.
: Theoretical papers are totally different.
: Actually, French says that the way he reads the paper is like this:
: 1. Look at abstract.
: 2. Stop and then think how the issued would be approaced (either modeling or
: empirical test design) if you wrote this paper.
: 3. Then read introduction and the paper.
: 4. Ask questions: are there anything that you did not think of? Anything
: that makes you "feel freshed"... Anything you can improve?
:
|
