Charting the Course for Scientific Discovery:Navigating Scholarly Research

By Sarabeth Lowe, MPH

Ms. Lowe is a Communication Specialist at the University of Delaware Disaster Research Center.

Welcome to the third edition of Health Literacy Highlights, a column that explores topics related to finding, understanding, and utilizing health information. This column is meant to empower you with the skills you need to apply what you already know and use it to maintain and protect your overall health and wellbeing. In this installment of Health Literacy Highlights, I focus on how to effectively read journal articles and other scholarly research. 

Reading a scientific journal article for the first time can feel like going into uncharted territory. These publications’ sometimes pedantic verbiage, unfamiliar diction, and formal jargon can make them difficult to navigate. Even the sheer scale of the literature presents a challenge; there are nearly 50,000 active scientific peer-reviewed journals worldwide, collectively publishing more than three million articles per year.^1,2 

Don’t let that intimidate you, though. Making informed decisions about your health requires an understanding of medical literature, and peer-reviewed journals are primary vehicles for communicating research.¹ In this case, there’s no way to circumvent the science; the only way out is through. Understanding scholarly research, particularly when it comes to reading journal articles, requires a skill set. Like any other kind of craft, it can be honed and strengthened over time. This article is meant to help you begin to navigate these waters.

Learning the Ropes

Reading a journal article is a completely different process from reading about the study in a newspaper or consumer health publication. The dense text, stilted rhetoric, and series of complex equations can feel overwhelming, to the point where scholarly research may seem like a monolith. However, like any kind of literature, it comes in different flavors and styles. Understanding their differences is a good starting point for selecting the research you’re looking for. 

In its broadest terms, there are two types of journal articles in the biomedical sciences: primary and secondary literature. In a nutshell, the former are reports of original research that address a specific question. These articles, which form the core of scientific publications, are written to present findings on new scientific discoveries or describe earlier work to acknowledge it and place new findings in the proper perspective.^3–5 There are several types of primary literature, including letters to the editor, conference proceedings, and, of course, different types of research studies.⁵ Secondary literature, which includes review articles, practice guidelines, and commentaries, is produced based on the analysis and interpretation of original research and primary literature in a specific field.⁴

Both primary and secondary literature bring their own strengths. The former contains more specific and actionable data, but the latter expands upon original research, connecting the dots between different studies and providing more context and meaning.^3–6 Reviews can be especially helpful for understanding the “big picture” of a topic because they summarize multiple primary research articles and give a sense of the consensus, debates, and unanswered questions within a specific field.⁶ Both types are published in peer-reviewed journals, which means they undergo and pass a strict evaluation process in which journal editors and other expert scholars critically assess the quality and scientific merit of the article and its research.⁷ Articles published in a peer-reviewed journal, which is considered the gold standard for scientific publishing, are more valued than ones that are not.^5,8

Setting Sail

Most scientific articles follow a similar core structure, but certain elements may be omitted depending on the type of study.^5,9 These are the key components of an original research article:

• Title
• Abstract
• Introduction
• Materials and Methods
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusion

Luckily, this structure lends itself well to navigating the content. Many people are familiar with these elements, but not the systematic approach involved in understanding how all of these parts connect. This process is not an intuitive one, and the first rule of thumb might surprise you: never start reading an article from the beginning to the end.^5,6,10–12 

Some experts suggest identifying the conclusions of the study by reading the title and the abstract first.⁵ If the article does not have the latter, consider reading the conclusions or summary at the end of the article first. While the title of a journal article is meant to be concise and self-explanatory, the abstract delves into the meat of the study and answers fundamental questions, including what the study is about, how the experiment was conducted, and the main findings. Starting with these elements is an apt place to begin because readers can more quickly evaluate the study’s relevance to their area of interest.^5,6 

Anchors Aweigh: Navigating the Text

If readers deem the article worth pursuing, they can dive further into the rest of the research. At this time, they can read on in chronological order.

Introduction. Most research doesn’t start from scratch. The purpose of the introduction is to explain the rationale for conducting the study while establishing what is and what is not already known.⁵ This section usually starts by summarizing existing knowledge and previous research on the topic, such as a specific health intervention or impact, and ends with the authors identifying the gap(s) in the literature that they are trying to address. The aims and objectives are usually mentioned at the end of the introduction.

Materials and methods. The devil is in the details. This section provides a clear overview of the authors’ methodology and study design. It describes the technical details of the experiment, including the instruments used, the number of subjects, sampling methods, measured variables, data collection, and other relevant information.^5,9,10 Rarely are all details about the experiment included in this section. The authors are expected to describe their procedures in enough detail to demonstrate the study’s legitimacy and enable other researchers to replicate the experiment. This is vital for the entire field of science, which is built on reproducible data.⁶

Results. In this section, authors summarize the data, often using tables, graphs, or other figures. Ideally, authors do not provide an interpretation of the data in this section, though statistical analyses are presented.⁵ This section also identifies results that were and were not statistically significant, which is the likelihood that a specific research finding or trend is due to random chance, rather than a real effect. In other words, statistical significance indicates the reliability of the study results. An important note: statistical significance is not the same as clinical significance, which assesses the real-world applicability and importance of that result in clinical practice. A finding can be statistically significant but not clinically significant or both.^13–15

Discussion. This is where the rubber meets the road. In this section, the authors summarize the main findings, interpret the data, and discuss the implications of the results.⁵ Often, the results are compared with those of comparable studies, explaining how they differ or are similar. This section also provides the authors with an opportunity to address unexpected findings or discrepancies and to identify the strengths and limitations of the study.¹⁶ This section is sometimes combined with the Conclusion section, but the Discussion provides a more in-depth exploration of the study’s findings, focusing more on the interpretation and analysis of the results.¹⁶ 

Conclusion. This section highlights the study’s broader implications and presents the outcome of the work by interpreting the findings at a higher level of abstraction than the Discussion section.¹⁶ It restates the research question, summarizes the main findings—often in relation to the research objectives from the introduction—and provides suggestions for future research, bringing in all elements of the study.¹⁶ This section should leave the reader with a clear understanding of the research and its significance. 

Fathoming the Facts

There are numerous strategies for effectively reading a journal article. Some are complex enough to require the use of a flowchart, and others use a simpler step-by-step process. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. However, here are five suggestions that can be widely applied to all types of scholarly research.

Identify the big question. Turn your eyes toward the abstract first. Think of this section as the journal article in a nutshell. It does more than just summarize the research; the abstract neatly distills the study to its core elements and pinpoints the question the authors are trying to answer. Knowing the “big question” will provide a frame of reference for the entire article and keep your focus on target.^5,6,9–11

Get to know the author(s). As in all written communication, the readers and the writers of scholarly research are equally important. Both influence the final outcome: your scientific understanding!¹⁷ After identifying the “big question,” consider the authors’ goals for sharing the content of the article and their expertise. This context will help you assess the study’s credibility, identify potential biases or conflicts of interest, evaluate the research process, and gain a better understanding of the authors’ interpretations of the data.^17,18

Think critically. Published papers are not etched in stone, and science is a never-ending work in progress. You don’t need to have multiple degrees to question the validity of findings or an author’s interpretations of the data. People can interpret the same data in different ways. Be aware of your own biases. The concept of expectancy, or self-fulfilling prophecy, is well-documented in psychology literature and shows that we, as scientists or otherwise, often look to find conclusions that align with our beliefs about the world.^17,19,20

Go the extra mile. Be prepared to put in some extra effort to truly understand a scientific work. You will likely need to familiarize yourself with the topic beforehand, look up a new term or two, or dig into supplemental materials. Some experts recommend reading an article three times: first skimming the text, then aiming to understand the research, and finally annotating the text and writing notes on the key points.¹⁷

Build on it. Whether you’re new to scholarly research or producing it, understanding the scientific process is a lifelong journey. Build on the article you read by integrating knowledge from other sources, connecting it to findings from other journal articles, or attempting to challenge or support the authors’ conclusions with a more extensive literature review.¹⁷ Think of this as stacking bricks; your construction will become taller and stronger if you build upon the work of others, rather than using only your own materials.

Edging Forward

Stepping into scholarly research can be a humbling experience, especially if you don’t have a background in science or medicine. However, it is those people who need this information most. Reading journal articles and other scholarly research will empower you to make more informed decisions about your health and participate more effectively in the public discourse about important public health issues that affect you and your family. You don’t need to know the ins and outs of the scientific process to navigate this uncharted territory. Simply having curiosity about these issues is a great way to begin charting your course.

Sources

1. Ghasemi A, Mirmiran P, Kashfi K, Bahadoran Z. Scientific publishing in biomedicine: a brief history of scientific journals. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2022;21(1):e131812.
2. Johnson R, Watkinson A, Mabe M. The STM Report: An Overview of Scientific and Scholarly Publishing, Fifth Edition. Geneva, Switzerland: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers; 2018.
3. Primary vs secondary literature in the biomedical sciences. Drexel University Libraries. Updated 7 Feb 2024. Accessed 30 Sep 2025. https://libguides.library.drexel.edu/biomed-literature-types
4. Secondary literature. ScienceDirect. Accessed 30 Sep 2025. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/secondary-literature
5. Subramanyam R. Art of reading a journal article: methodically and effectively. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol. 2013;17(1):65–70.
6. Raff J. How to read and understand a scientific paper: a guide for non-scientists. London School of Economics and Political Science. 9 May 2016. Accessed 27 Aug 2025. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/
   2016/05/09/how-to-read-and-understand-a-scientific-paper-a-guide-for-non-scientists/
7. Health data sources: peer-reviewed literature. National Library of Medicine. Accessed 30 Sep 2025. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/oet/ed/stats/03-700.html
8. Mayden KD. Peer review: publication’s gold standard. J Adv Pract Oncol. 2012;3(2):117–122.
9. Cooper ID. How to write an original research paper (and get it published). J Med Libr Assoc. 2015;103(2):67–68.
10. How to read a scholarly article. University of Florida – George A. Smathers Libraries. Updated 30 Jul 2025. Accessed 30 Aug 2025. https://guides.uflib.ufl.edu/publichealth/howtoreadscholarlyarticle
11. Hudson-Barr D. How to read a research article. J Spec Pediatr Nurs. 2004;9(2):70–72.
12. Tanquary G, Cortez E. Reading a journal article: a simplified approach. Emergency Medicine Residents’ Association. 5 Feb 2019. Accessed 30 Sep 2025. https://www.emra.org/emresident/article/reading-journals
13. Shreffler J, Huecker MR. Hypothesis testing, p values, confidence intervals, and significance. StatPearls. Updated 13 Mar 2023. Accessed 30 Sep 2025. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557421/
14. Ranganathan P, Pramesh CS, Buyse M. Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: clinical versus statistical significance. Perspect Clin Res. 2015;6(3):169–170.
15. Riegelman RK. Studying a study and Testing a Test: How to Read the Medical Evidence, Fifth Edition. Philadelphia, USA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2005:45.
16. Gangadhar S, Seethi N. Discussion vs. conclusion: researcher’s compact guide. SciSpace. Updated 23 Dec 2023. Accessed 2 Oct 2025.  https://scispace.com/resources/discussion-vs-conclusion/  
18. Carey MA, Steiner KL, Petri WA Jr. Ten simple rules for reading a scientific paper. PLoS Comput Biol. 2020;16(7):e1008032.
20. Fact from fiction: author credibility. Whitworth University. Updated 25 Feb 2025. Accessed 2 Oct 2025. https://libguides.whitworth.edu/factfromfiction/authorcredibility
22. Kirsch, I. Response expectancy theory and application: a decennial review. Appl Prev Psychol. 1997;6(2):69–79.
24. Pilat D, Krastev S. Expectancy theory. The Decision Lab. Accessed 3 Oct 2025. https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/psychology/expectancy-theory.