> my quick search on google scholar i'd say there are way more than a handful of papers on reading comprehension at high speeds.
The Rayner paper is what is called a review. It has 19 pages of references to hundreds of papers on the topic that Rayner has read so the nonexpert does not have to.
Generally, reviews are much better sources than individual papers for the non-expert to read because the author has gone through the literature to understand the feuds and arguments and how they have played out. In my field, I regularly have people try to send me papers that were thoroughly thrashed as wrong over a decade ago. That is generally what happens when a non-expert tries to dive into the primary literature blindly without understanding the general framework and consensus that a good review provides.
All that said, it is very hard for a non-expert to tell whether a review is good or not. It is a conundrum.
The Rayner paper is what is called a review. It has 19 pages of references to hundreds of papers on the topic that Rayner has read so the nonexpert does not have to.
Generally, reviews are much better sources than individual papers for the non-expert to read because the author has gone through the literature to understand the feuds and arguments and how they have played out. In my field, I regularly have people try to send me papers that were thoroughly thrashed as wrong over a decade ago. That is generally what happens when a non-expert tries to dive into the primary literature blindly without understanding the general framework and consensus that a good review provides.
All that said, it is very hard for a non-expert to tell whether a review is good or not. It is a conundrum.