I understand what you are saying. Reading scientific material, like this, is not normal reading. It is highly critical reading. You're more than just reading a novel. You are constantly challenging the validity of the statements, and not just decoding the writing for meaning.
I could be that good challenging questions, could provide rapid identification of key issues in a papers.
Why is this work limited?
Why is it flawed?
Where is the new idea?
What is the key step?
