Ask HN: How do you read an academic paper?

My usual first steps are to read the title, the abstract, and the figures/tables, in that order. Pause there and mentally summarize what I just read. If there are terms I didn't know or I'm not familiar with the topic, then I go through the introduction parts of the paper. After that I read the discussion sections and conclusions. I usually skip the methods sections and read those last only if needed.

All during that I try to keep track of questions I have or claims the authors are making. Once I've gone through a lot of the paper, I go back and look for answers to my questions. Interrogate the paper until you are convinced.

I remember being younger and getting stressed about reading papers. So I want to add that not all paper are well written. Don't worry if you're struggling. It's not easy in the beginning and the papers themselves aren't perfect. Keep working at it because it does get easier!

Depends on the type of paper.

If it's in the model of a STEM style paper, then read abstract, read intro + conclusion, see if findings are relevant or interesting or significant. If they are, read the whole paper while recreating the logic/experiment/problem in your head. Question, question, question. Actively read and constantly question the findings or nature of the experiment.

If it's in the model of a humanities or argumentative paper, then read the abstract with a focus on the central thesis or argument, it should be clearly stated. If it's not, then the paper might be poorly written, or too vague to be very useful. If it is, then judge if it's relevant or interesting or significant. If it is, read the intro section. Decide if you should continue reading. When you read the rest of the paper, always refer back to the argument and thesis in your head (which should be clearly stated and summarized in the intro section). Actively question the logic and steps of the argument, evidence, analysis. Assume they will address counterarguments; if they don't, be savage and see if pulling on the thread of a counterargument undoes the whole logic of the paper. Take notes but don't just copy, note your reactions to the paper.

The papers are all based in cryptography and zero-knowledge proofs specifically. I would argue they are in the first category you described. They seem to be descriptive and walk through a problem but there are no experiments or anything, just theorems and proofs. I get lost pretty easily