|
When I read research papers about machine learning, clustering ... I wast a lot of time in reading one paper, and usually I find that finally it is not useful or convenient for what I wanted (even if the abstract looked interesting). How do you usually organize yourself when reading papers and taking notes of them ? |
|
You really need to learn to read a paper on many levels, and most papers you read will be only in a very superficial level. Force yourself to skim a paper in less than 5min, and then make yourself answer, in writing, what are things like the motivation, key ideas, main related work, main result, etc. Deeper levels of reading include being able to implement a silly version of the paper's algorithm (if there is one) or convince yourself that intuitive special cases of the theorems they proved are true. Learn to not skip equations, but also know that most people don't read every symbol in the equation but pattern-match it with other known similar equations (same thing with algorithms). Learn how to do that. Yes, I think that to skim a paper in about 5min then read it in a superficial level. If it is as interesting as what I expected I read it with a deeper level.
(Feb 24 '12 at 08:31)
shn
|
Is mendeley really useful ?
(Feb 24 '12 at 08:28)
shn
I use BibDesk. Its database is a BibTeX file, so integrating with LaTeX is a no-brainer.
(Feb 24 '12 at 11:16)
Kevin Canini
|
|
Even I am facing the same problem , but what I usually do is , read first the asbstract ,their main contributions and some of the mathematical equations and the conclusions. If this answers some of my questions, I usually read the whole paper.This may save your little bit of time. Here is a link for how to read and organize scientific paper. |
|
I hate to add an answer to an otherwise well answered question, but one thing to remember about reading research is that there is a large number of crap or uninteresting papers being published every day. The reason for this is simple -- publish or perish -- but as researchers, everyone suffers because the signal can get lost in the noise. This means you must be vigilant when reading research. Can't work out what's going on after reading the abstract? Don't bother. The results are at best incremental using a weird evaluation metric? Don't bother. Very poor communication skills? Don't bother. Paper from 2000 in an active field, but has no citations? Read a little, but don't stress too much. It may sound a little pretentious, but the reality is that we have too much to do to waste time reading a paper from a conference that the authors just put in to bump up their quota. It's also important to keep track of all the papers you ignore, and why you ignored them. While Dov only puts relevant papers in Mendeley, I put everything in there and try to keep notes on most of the papers (I've been a little slack, but it's a low priority task at the moment). I do this because I kept finding myself getting halfway through a paper and realizing I've read it before. In this context, what do you think about this project ?
(Feb 23 '12 at 17:07)
Dov
also interesting: http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/05/the-future-of-peer-review/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29
(Feb 23 '12 at 17:07)
Dov
|
|
Here is my personal workflow to complement Dov's:
paper2ebook is a tool to make 2 columns papers somewhat readable on mobile devices. +1. thanks of the paper2ebook.
(Feb 25 '12 at 14:19)
Dov
|