How to identify a good vs. bad paper

Earlier this year, Prof. Dr. Dieter Riemann shared a concise framework via ESRS social media, highlighting key characteristics that differentiate a high-quality scientific paper from one of lesser rigour. The post quickly became one of our most widely shared and discussed pieces!

Given the level of interest, this week’s edition of Sleep Science Friday features an extended conversation with Prof. Riemann, interviewed by Dr. Kate Porcheret.

Drawing on his long-standing experience as Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Sleep Research, Prof. Riemann reflects on both structural and conceptual aspects of scientific writing. The discussion offers valuable insights for researchers at all career stages, particularly those seeking to improve their critical reading and writing practices.

Below is a summary of the seven elements he considers essential when evaluating a scientific paper:

1. General Impression
    – A strong paper presents something novel or original.
    – Weak papers often revisit the “same old story” without contributing new knowledge.
    (Note: Replication per se is important.)

2. Abstract
    – Should be concise and convey the main message.
    – Poor abstracts often omit critical information or lack clarity.

3. Introduction
    – Clear, precise.
    – A weak introduction tends to meander and fail to establish purpose.

4. Hypothesis
    – Well-defined, ideally limited to one or two primary hypotheses.
    – Bad Papers are vague or have numerous hypotheses.

5. Methodology
    – Precisely described with no open questions remaining.

6. Results
    – Structured logically; tables and figures should complement, not duplicate, the narrative.
    – In weaker manuscripts, the order may be confusing or disconnected from the introduction.

7. Discussion
    – Strong papers interpret results in a scientific context and discuss limitations.
    – Weak discussions either repeat the results uncritically or overinterpret findings.

Listen to the full interview as Prof. Riemann reflects on the editorial perspective and shares advice for authors, reviewers, and mentors navigating the evolving landscape of scientific publishing.