https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7037-779X
We were recently engaged in an email discussion with colleagues about the extent to which they fully read scientific research papers. We were not entirely surprised when these colleagues – senior clinical scientists with long track records of research and publishing – each said that they had probably fully read fewer than 10 papers during their careers. ‘Fully read’ is the critical term here. In our correspondence, we took this term to mean starting to read a paper with its title, move through the abstract and all the main sections, scrutinising tables, figures, appendices and supplementary material, and finishing with its conclusions and acknowledgements – to digest every sentence in the document, much as one might read a novel.
These same colleagues noted, however, that the only circumstance in which a scientific paper is read in full is when reviewing a paper to assess its suitability for publication in a journal. Such work demands a high level of scrutiny and critical evaluation, as reviewers are the gatekeepers of the scientific reputation of a journal. Reviewing a scientific paper can take anything from one hour to an entire day.
Putting aside the special circumstance of peer review, if almost no papers are fully read by their audience, what is the purpose of scientific publishing? After all, no-one would manufacture cars if nobody drove them! In fact, the car analogy is false; a better comparison is to consider a television schedule for the day. Very few people sit and watch a television channel from dawn to dusk; most are selective in their viewing – watching shows and bulletins which are of interest to them in some way. It is the same for scientific papers. For some, a thorough review of the abstract followed by targeted dipping into the paper provides the ideal balance between getting to grips with the paper but not spending time on less relevant detail. For others, perhaps the methodology is key to their laboratory or clinic, and time is needed to fully comprehend that section. Some readers might be readily familiar with the methods of a clinical study or laboratory experiment but wish to become fully engrossed in the results or the conclusions described by the authors.
In this way, the scientific literature fully meets its goal. A scientific paper provides a full description of an experiment or area of scientific endeavour, allowing readers to target their own reading to the areas of key interest – to focus on the information which will inform patient care or experimentation, as appropriate. As such, the scientific literature remains the key steppingstone between generating new information and delivering its impact to society.
What about clinical optometrists?
Our discussion about reading scientific papers referred to in the opening paragraph related to experienced researchers, who peruse scientific papers to learn about new techniques and theories, and as an entrée to engaging in scientific discourse and debate. This raises the question as to the approach that ought to be adopted by clinical optometrists, who generally read scientific papers for different reasons, such as broadly keeping abreast of advances in ophthalmic science and learning of new concepts and approaches that may assist them in delivering the best possible evidence-based eye care.
Many optometrists subscribe to ophthalmic journals by virtue of their membership of learned societies or professional associations. For example, most Australian optometrists enjoy full access to this journal, Clinical and Experimental Optometry, by virtue of being members of Optometry Australia. Eight issues are published per year, with each issue containing about 10 scientific research papers, resulting in 80 papers to read … and if each paper was read in full, that would require considerable effort!
Our advice to clinicians who seek to learn of new concepts and approaches from these articles is to adopt much the same practice as academics. Carefully read the title and abstract. In most cases, that will suffice, because the abstract reveals the key findings of the paper. As well, clinicians are assisted by the opening ‘clinical relevance’ statement of the abstract. Given that abstracts are constrained to a maximum of 300 words, reading all the abstracts in an issue is equivalent to reading a 3,000-word summary, which might take one to two hours. Many would consider this to be a good investment in time, given the desirability of most clinicians to keep abreast of developments in their field. Occasionally, information revealed in the abstract may be of particular interest, in which case it is a simple matter to find more detailed information in the body of the paper.
Of course, this discussion has been about scientific research papers, but Clinical and Experimental Optometry, and similar clinical journals, contains other types of articles, such as review papers, viewpoints, clinical communications (case reports), profiles, historical notes and book reviews. Aside from review papers, none of these article types contain an abstract; however, they are sufficiently brief to be read in full if of particular interest.
So, our message to clinicians who subscribe to journals is to not be intimidated by notifications that a new issue of the journal is available to read. Notwithstanding the more detailed reading of some papers for the purpose of acquiring points for continuing professional development to maintain practice registration, by just reading the titles and abstracts of scientific papers and dipping into some papers for more detailed information, or reading brief articles of interest, you can be assured of keeping abreast of the latest developments in ophthalmic science, for the betterment of your own intellect, and the ophthalmic well-being of your patients.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).