| You make reasonable points. I'm just relaying my impressions based on my experience reading papers. Perhaps some topics have strengths/weaknesses in different areas. > But everybody knows the conclusion is read without the paper and even without the introduction. But not without the abstract! Unless the abstract is so opaque that you're just reading the conclusion in hopes that they'll have written something intelligible, somewhere. But that's doing it wrong. I'll assert that the Right way to read a paper is: abstract first. Stop there if that's enough to tell you it's not relevant or interesting. If it piques your interest, conclusion next. Probably stop there, but if it's really intriguing, tackle the introduction next (but don't get your expectations too high; median introduction quality is pretty low.) Stop there unless it's really up your alley. If the abstract doesn't pique your interest, but it's because you can't extract any sense from it, then next is either the introduction or the conclusion depending on what part most needs clarity. > Also, I have never seen a toc that was bragging. They are dry because they are scripted. I don't think the intent is to brag. And I think it's defensible; if you're writing a paper, you should write it from a perspective of believing that it is an important addition to Knowledge. I would hate to read an overly humble paper. People definitely overshoot, though, and claim that they're resolving a much larger chunk of the overall puzzle than they are. Importance and significance are not good assumptions to start with when reading. |