Hey friends,
Recently, I got an interesting question while conducting an EndNote session :
How can I keep up with all the papers I need to read?
It’s easy to find papers now. But what do you do with them?
My answer was probably not what they expected.
You probably don't need to read more. You need to read differently.
In research, we find interesting and relevant papers, we collect them and cite them.
So we end up with hundreds of PDFs, huge EndNote libraries, folders full of papers and dozens of tabs open at the same time
But how much of it do we actually remember?
And more importantly, how much of it changes the way we think?
This is where I think we can learn something from Warren Buffett (famous american investor)
He know that he reads a lot, but that’s not the point here
He has talked about reading hundreds of pages a day and described knowledge as something that builds up like compound interest
But the important part isn't the number of pages.
It is how he reads.
Buffett isn't reading simply to finish another financial report. He is looking for signals, connecting what he reads to what he already knows, questioning assumptions and looking for patterns
We can do the exact same thing in research
I have seen researchers read hundreds of papers and struggle to explain how those papers connect. I have also seen researchers read far fewer papers but develop an incredibly strong understanding of their field.
This has nothing to do with intelligence.
Basically, we all learn how to read but stop connecting ideas
Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren's How to Read a Book describes four levels of reading.
Elementary reading is simply understanding words and sentences. Most of us mastered this years ago (primary school level)
Then comes inspectional reading. This is where you quickly examine a book or paper before deciding how much attention it deserves. For a research paper, look at the title, abstract, figures, conclusion, references and section headings before you decide if you gonna spend 2 hours of your time going through it
Then comes analytical reading, where you properly understand the work. What question is the researcher asking? What is the main argument? What evidence supports it? What assumptions are being made? Does the evidence actually support the conclusion?
Finally, there is syntopical reading. You read multiple papers on the same question and compare them. Where do they agree? Where do they disagree? Are they using different definitions, methods or theoretical assumptions?
This is where a literature review becomes more than a list of papers
It becomes your understanding of the field
One of the simplest changes you can make is to stop treating every paper as if it deserves the same amount of attention.
It doesn't.
Before reading a paper, spend 10 to 15 minutes inspecting it. Look at the title, abstract, research question, figures, methods, conclusion and references.
Then ask: Is this paper worth a deep read?
Sometimes the answer will be yes. Sometimes you'll realise that you only need one section. And sometimes you'll discover that the paper isn't relevant at all
That's not wasted time. That's good research judgment.
Here's another mistake I see all the time.
You start reading a difficult paper. You find a sentence you don't understand, so you stop. You search for the terminology, open another paper, find another concept you don't understand, and search again.
Twenty minutes later, you're still on page three. I've done this too.
Sometimes the better approach is to keep going. Read the paper once to understand the big picture. What is it trying to do? How is it structured? Where is the main contribution? What seems important?
Then go back. Try to see the whole picture first. Then study the details.
This is especially important for PhD students.
A weak literature review often looks like this:
Paper A found X. Paper B found Y. Paper C found Z.
That's a collection of papers.
A strong literature review asks why those findings are different. Are the researchers studying different populations? Using different methods? Working from different theories? Looking at different time periods?
And where is the unresolved question?
You are no longer simply reporting what other researchers said.
You are mapping the conversation.
That is where your own contribution begins.
AI makes this even more important
AI can summarise 50 papers in minutes. It can extract themes, compare findings and generate tables. That's incredibly useful.
But if you outsource the thinking, you can end up with a very efficient summary of other people's ideas without actually developing your own understanding.
The value of research isn't simply knowing what 50 papers said.
It is understanding why they said it, where they disagree, what the evidence supports, and what is still missing.
AI can help you process the material.
You still need to build the intellectual architecture.
Try this today: Pick one important paper you've been meaning to read.
Before reading it properly, give yourself 15 minutes. Look at the title, abstract, figures, methods, conclusion and references.
Then write down three things:
What problem is this paper addressing?
What is its main contribution?
Why does it matter for my research?
Then decide how deeply you need to read it. You won't get extra research points for finishing papers you didn't need.
The more carefully you read, the less you need to read.
Because every good paper starts connecting to the papers you have already read.
Eventually, you stop collecting papers. You start building expertise
Well, that’s all for today. Let me know what you think and let’s continue the conversation in our community
See you next week,
Jamal
—