There's different levels:
1. The guy who reads the title of the journal article.
2. The guy who reads the abstract of the journal article.
3. The guy who reads the text of the article.
4. The guy who's read all the other significant research in the field and can put it in context alongside their own personal experience as a practitioner.
I'm #2, and I strive to be #3. It's really hard to be #4, especially for more than one domain.
I never realized how wrong papers could be until I read some from my industry and dug into their methodology of which I'm sufficiently knowledgeable to spot issues. I don't recall specifics as it was a while ago but I do recall the district impression I was left with which amounted to "holy crap, I wouldn't let this person pull reports on my ad account let alone run campaigns" due to the buy side 101 mistakes they made.
Since then I read all scientific papers with a huge heaping of salt.
(0.2. The guy who reads the title of the news article for the journal article on HN and proceeds straight to the comment section...)
Is that a thing or did you make it up?
There's a reason abstracts exist, and they usually provide enough information as to whether the paper discovered any significant findings, so whether it's worth reading at all.
If you are #1, #2 and in #2 you include reading not just the paper but the meta-analysis papers of the field, that already puts you ahead of 95% of the general public.
Not even scientists themselves are full #3 people. It's just impossible, considering the amount of work that exists in the field, and considering that most studies just confirm existing findings from 10-20-50 years ago.
This is an incredibly common guy
You should probably add a "5. don't know" option and check that one...