I only got to 2nd pass for this paper.
I found it interesting in a meta sort of way that the paper's first pass ctechnique can't be applied to itself (there's no conclusion).
How to Read a Paper (2016) [pdf]
41–44 of 44 posts
Re: How to Read a Paper (2016) [pdf]
#42I'd like to present a fourth option, the "0-pass": Don't read most papers. Don't feel bad about not reading them, because in general they are terribly written. Instead, read follow-on work which resynthesizes the ideas in these papers for a popular audience.
One of the key questions after the first pass is "is this well-written enough to keep reading?"
Re: How to Read a Paper (2016) [pdf]
#43This part was most interesting to me: "Incidentally, when you write a paper, you can expect most reviewers (and readers) to make only one pass over it." I understand reviewers are busy, but we depend on peer review to filter out bad or poorly-researched material. I don't think one pass is enough. Obviously, so does the author.
More practically, one should not expect that a peer-reviewed paper is correct.
For a YC-compatible analogy: think of it as code review. Pure junk gets filtered out, but bugs inevitably remain.
Re: How to Read a Paper (2016) [pdf]
#44This part was most interesting to me: "Incidentally, when you write a paper, you can expect most reviewers (and readers) to make only one pass over it." I understand reviewers are busy, but we depend on peer review to filter out bad or poorly-researched material. I don't think one pass is enough. Obviously, so does the author.
Depending on the conference or journal, most papers can be rejected in one pass. Heck, the reviewer might abort after the intro if the paper is particularly bad. The papers that make it past one pass get more scrutiny.
I've gotten reviews where it was obvious the reviewer didn't read the paper. "You didn't address X at all" when I had a section heading under Discussion labeled X in big bold font.
The review process is stochastic and leans towards reject by default.