Getting into the habit of reading research papers and books with one main question in mind “What can we do, see, or understand (etc) with this research that we couldn’t without it?”

Similar with the bold claims of AI. What meaningful problem is AI solving in a better way than we may have solved it before?

About papers, you, possibly, will get frustrated about how much repetition there is in the academy world.

Crazy idea, but maybe that is what could go into the abstract?

I always suggest that PhD students imagine someone reading their completed thesis, going home to their life partner and saying ‘I read a PhD by X today and learned something new. What I learned was …’

Please don’t apply that to my posts.

Love this. I'm going to try and use it in my own reading.

To answer that question you need to read the other 6 papers by the same authors who carefully sliced up their main findings into as many papers as possible...

How will your practice change with this new habit? More rejections perhaps? Or is it for your own prioritisation? I feel novelty and importance in peer review are wholly misapplied. The resulting noise in published work feeds inappropriate peer review heuristics, and on it goes in a vicious cycle...