[gus_massa]

I guess it depend on the area, but (for me, in my area) published results are just a stating point.

When reading a paper the first question are: Does it even makes sense? (mostly yes, it depends on the journal) Is it overhyped? (definitively yes) Is it interesting after removing the overhype? (sometimes yes) Can we reproduce the result with our tools? (I hope so) Can we combine the result with our previous results? (I hope so) Is the combination interesting? (I hope so) Interesting enough to assign it to a graduate student, to drop whatever we are doing or something in between? (mostly something in between)

If we try to reproduce the result and fail miserably or if the methods are too unclear, we will jut forget about the paper and work in another topic. Perhaps contact the authors if we know them or the result very promising.

I think we never take a result at face value, except perhaps for the list of citations that appear in the introduction about recent related work.