I am reading a book called Advice For Young Investigator by Satiago Ramon y Cajal. In the first chapter it says that outstanding work in a field requires "immense zeal applied to a great idea". Ramon stresses the importance of believing, even as a complete novice, in your work, and fearlessly questioning the works of your predecessors. I guess the whole concept of peer review centres on mutual constructive criticism to collectively refine and advance science, and the crux of the process is that critiquing your peer’s work does not necessarily mean condescending them or undermining their work, rather using your modicum of expertise to contribute to their greater success. Analysing literature with a critical eye is analogous to peer review, in the sense that you have to be ruthless and fearless in your scrutiny of the work in front of you, questioning everything fro the method used, to the data presented or concealed. This interpretive shift from thinking I am no one to challenge published work, to thinking no, I am someone with a brain and a pretty mediocre understanding of the scientific method and neuroscience research, and my input might be valuable.
In our weekly lab meetings this semester, which consisted of either presenting your own data or a paper of interest, I gained a lot of exposure to scientific literature. Our meetings were spent eyeballing each graph or chart presented and pinpointing every methodological flaw, or questioning why certain things were tested and others were not.
At first most of it went over my head, but gradually I am beginning to understand how to look at work critically, and not feel arrogant or disrespectful in doing so. After all, the more pedantic, the better (as far as the bigger picture goes)!
