But how do <i>I</i> do that? I can interpret a paper and apply it to my problems, but I&#x27;m not qualified to tell if it&#x27;s a <i>good</i> paper[1]. In my field -- computing -- research papers are often written in a language that only <i>just</i> makes sense to me. I&#x27;m sure it&#x27;d be easier if I was a computer scientist that regularly published, but that&#x27;s why I suggest you&#x27;d need a team of actual scientists who are used to reading, writing, and reviewing papers.<p>As Kernighan almost wrote:<p><i>Reviewing the paper is twice as hard as reading the paper in the first place. Therefore, if you have to be as clever as possible to read the paper, you are, by definition, not smart enough to review it.</i><p>[1] Although I can tell whether the code <i>works</i>, the quality of a paper is also about how well-written it is, whether the arguments are valid and supported by the data, and whether it provides something future research can be built on. A terrible paper that happens to contain code that works is useful for me, not so much for science in general.