I use a customized version of this: http://blizzard.cs.uwaterloo.ca/keshav/home/Papers/data/07/p...
The most important thing for me is to not read it from the beginning to the end (which is hard for me). Abstract->Conclusions, scan headlines. Methods is the most curious section for me. Depending on the paper and what I am working on I read the methods section last or first (even before the abstract). If it's more of a "oh that seems neat" paper I skip the methods section and mostly extract the idea. The book "How to read a book" is also a good source of ideas.
I don't think there's a one size fits all approach. I also find the various papers on writing literature reviews very helpful (for gathering an overview of a topic). Just checked my Zotero and these are the ones I have tagged:
"Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature"
"On being ‘systematic’in literature reviews in IS"
"A hermeneutic approach for conducting literature reviews and literature searches"
"Systematic literature reviews in software engineering–a systematic literature review"
"Writing narrative literature reviews."
Feel free to go as meta as you want ;)
Not necessarily. IMO, she proposes a specific way of "thinking" about the paper's content (I use another approach ). Papers are written following a certain structure because many people think it's a better way of presenting the ideas in detail/with the necessary rigor (that's what other "scientists" in the field would expect). For example, no researcher expects a five-sentence summary of the background. Personally, I expect an explanation of the relevant concepts/techniques and some sort of analysis of how existing work relates to the paper (instead of a list of related papers). At least in software engineering, many papers state the research questions explicitly, i.e., they would be identified if you read the paper from beginning to end. They tend to have a "results" section as well, so summarizing the results myself would be an intellectual exercise. Once you understand how papers are usually structured, you pick up on many of those things as you go (I mean, as you simply read the paper as the author intended).
On a side note, I'd say that many researchers don't do a good job of conveying their ideas clearly (it gets worse with conference presentations). It won't really matter in what order you try to read their papers.
How to read research papers & math notation http://blizzard.cs.uwaterloo.ca/keshav/home/Papers/data/07/p... http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/gowers/gowers_I_2.pdf http://www.math.cornell.edu/~hubbard/readingmath.pdf
Music information retrieval http://musicinformationretrieval.com/ https://www.audiolabs-erlangen.de/fau/professor/mueller/book...