tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2899165782864226363.post2089784534372267357..comments2023-04-10T09:48:11.568-04:00Comments on The Junction Potential: Well this one goes to eleven - NOW NEW AND IMPROVED!Nat Blairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12684196915592792806noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2899165782864226363.post-45350133295440434722008-10-20T00:51:00.000-04:002008-10-20T00:51:00.000-04:00funny, I always took (data not shown) to mean n=1....funny, I always took (data not shown) to mean n=1...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2899165782864226363.post-69056929903977579422008-10-13T13:52:00.000-04:002008-10-13T13:52:00.000-04:00I always found them annoying as a reader.. especia...I always found them annoying as a reader.. especially when you print the article you are going to present in journal club tomorrow so that you can read it on the bus on the way home and then you see that there is a shitload of suppl. figs that you did NOT print and have to go back. <BR/><BR/>My last paper from my PhD work, however, included 3 supplementary figures. This allowed me to show important data that was fundamental to the conclusions I was making but would have made the paper too long. One of the figs was actually something a reviewer asked for. <BR/><BR/>The greatest use of suppl. figs is in those places where it would normally say (data not shown) but as a reader you really want to see that data!!Dr. Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07282370723678000525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2899165782864226363.post-43102433279801374142008-10-13T06:27:00.000-04:002008-10-13T06:27:00.000-04:00Thanks Dr. A! I'd definitely be interested on your...Thanks Dr. A! I'd definitely be interested on your take regarding suppl. figs. I tend to think they're annoying, but if you've reconsidered that, I'd love to hear why.Nat Blairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12684196915592792806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2899165782864226363.post-25553957052769648582008-10-12T19:11:00.000-04:002008-10-12T19:11:00.000-04:00The impact factor of this blog just went up. I lov...The impact factor of this blog just went up. I love this post. My average number of figures is 8, not including supplementary figs. <BR/><BR/>I used to hate supplementary data but now am starting to appreciate it.. another idea for a post.Dr. Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07282370723678000525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2899165782864226363.post-4592650948175486822008-10-11T18:25:00.000-04:002008-10-11T18:25:00.000-04:00@whoever - Last I checked this was a blog by Nat B...@whoever - Last I checked this was a blog by Nat Blair, not David Clapham. <BR/><BR/>So it's not so relevant what David thinks of all this shit. If you want to know, why don't you email him?Nat Blairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12684196915592792806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2899165782864226363.post-32168705909398264902008-10-11T14:50:00.000-04:002008-10-11T14:50:00.000-04:00So, you really think that David gives a shit about...So, you really think that David gives a shit about any of this - as long as it gets published in something with a high impact factor?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2899165782864226363.post-42173920511143447572008-10-10T08:19:00.000-04:002008-10-10T08:19:00.000-04:00Hey, Mike, nice new chairman digs ya got here! Che...Hey, Mike, nice new chairman digs ya got here! Check out this blog post I just wrote, it's got a table, a figure, and like 10 people on teh internet just read it so maybe....WAAAAAAA<BR/><BR/>*disappears into the maw*Nat Blairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12684196915592792806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2899165782864226363.post-14044387913563900942008-10-10T00:54:00.000-04:002008-10-10T00:54:00.000-04:00Funny, here I thought Harvard was known for eating...Funny, here I thought Harvard was known for eating its young, not promoting them :)Dr. Jekyll and Mrs. Hydehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07005652406299754952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2899165782864226363.post-3796676699366031392008-10-09T10:27:00.000-04:002008-10-09T10:27:00.000-04:00sweet! *goes to update CV*I'm gonna bring this com...sweet! *goes to update CV*<BR/><BR/>I'm gonna bring this comment over to Mike Greenberg and let him know. I think a Hahvahd job is in my future!<BR/><BR/>Keep your fingers crossed everyon.Nat Blairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12684196915592792806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2899165782864226363.post-4943979458895588152008-10-09T10:10:00.000-04:002008-10-09T10:10:00.000-04:00I am especially impressed that the author has made...I am especially impressed that the author has made use of extensive analytical techniques, including regression lines and Igor tables, to demonstrate the point. This blog post is likely to spur other groups to further quantification of their own figure/panel ratios. Accept as is!Dr. Jekyll and Mrs. Hydehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07005652406299754952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2899165782864226363.post-84410405133029397112008-10-09T09:47:00.000-04:002008-10-09T09:47:00.000-04:00Thanks for the table info pointer, DrJMrsH. I deci...Thanks for the table info pointer, DrJMrsH. I decided I'd update the post, adding a table as an image, and a figure I made in about 10 minutes this morning. <BR/><BR/>I think these revisions have like totally answered the reviewers' questions.Nat Blairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12684196915592792806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2899165782864226363.post-4869435210848091052008-10-09T02:01:00.000-04:002008-10-09T02:01:00.000-04:00Dude, that's hysterical that you quantified. Trust...Dude, that's hysterical that you quantified. Trust a scientist! I agree that I want each figure to have a straightforward title that sums up the contents--which only works if each figure is a unitary idea, more or less.<BR/><BR/>And since I have it handy, my most recent paper-to-be: 7 figures (as I posted about), 37 total panels (although 2 or 3 of those are "schematic" non-data panels.) <BR/><BR/>Love the albatross. We all has them. That'd be a good post topic...<BR/><BR/>BTW your table is all but unreadable on my platform (Mac, Firefox). The html crap for tables is annoying but workable; here's one <A HREF="http://www.htmlcodetutorial.com/tables/index_famsupp_27.html" REL="nofollow">site</A> with info.Dr. Jekyll and Mrs. Hydehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07005652406299754952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2899165782864226363.post-31682190492550484652008-10-07T12:48:00.000-04:002008-10-07T12:48:00.000-04:00Oh, yes, I believe in elegant, uncluttered figures...Oh, yes, I believe in elegant, uncluttered figures! Otherwise, what's the point? (though I have to admit, my distribution of panels per figure is not.... Gaussian)<BR/><BR/>Yes, the move has been in general for papers overall to get shorter, which means fewer figures, fewer words, fewer citations...really fewer everything. It has resulted in either more focused or less deep papers (depending on your point of view). Supplementary materials are huge (both in popularity and in size). I have mixed feelings about this as well. On the one hand, a good supp is useful for recreating a complicated methodology in an otherwise short paper, but sometimes we end up needing to stick everything but the kitchen sink into the supp to fit into the word requirements and some important things get shoved into a file may people probably won't look at. I also feel that they are reviewed less rigorously than the main text...<BR/><BR/>Don't know whether ecology papers tend to have a higher text:figure ratio (my reading in the physio lit is even less than your reading of the ecology lit). However, most of our work is probably more focused on a single set of experiments because of the logistic contraints, which may reduce the number of figures that need to be presented? Just a guess.Professor Chaoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15218728439335729853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2899165782864226363.post-51199295314475132772008-10-07T11:25:00.000-04:002008-10-07T11:25:00.000-04:0010.3 panels per paper, with 7.4 figures. How beaut...10.3 panels per paper, with 7.4 figures. How beautiful they must be, with 1 or 2, maybe 3 panels at most! <BR/><BR/>But people want things shorter? How short do they want them? Is the text relatively longer? I would say that in my very superficial reading of anything at all related to ecology (ok, mostly the 2 papers I was on as an undergrad) the text relative to figures was higher than what I see as typical in a physiology paper.<BR/><BR/>Is supplementary data a big thing in your journals? I personally don't see that as a truly desirable route to shorter papers, but it's one way. <BR/><BR/>I will say that in some cases the panel is a very ambiguous thing. In reviewing some of those papers, what the authors chose to call a panel (which I stuck with for the quantification - and boy, did that table come out sucky) is not what I would have called it. In general, they were cramming too much stuff into a panel IMO.Nat Blairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12684196915592792806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2899165782864226363.post-80940949111350832008-10-07T11:07:00.000-04:002008-10-07T11:07:00.000-04:00Well, I don't know about ideal, but a sample taken...Well, I don't know about ideal, but a sample taken from my publications indicates my average number of figs is 7.44 and average number of panels is 10.3<BR/><BR/>I was actually surprised by this. There's been a big push in my field for shorter articles, so I thought my average would be far less than 7. Perhaps if I focused on taking a more recent subset my number would be smaller....Professor Chaoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15218728439335729853noreply@blogger.com