Skip to content. | Skip to navigation
Log in | find out more or join now.
By Barbara Gastel, 03 February 2012
By Ravi Murugesan, 01 February 2012
This is the announcement for the first set of small grants in 2012. Read More…
By Bernard Appiah, 31 January 2012
By Barbara Gastel, 29 January 2012
By Barbara Gastel, 27 January 2012
By Barbara Gastel | 09 January 2010
Hello again. I hope you’ve had a good week.
This week, a former student e-mailed me a link to photos of her wedding. Later, a former colleague sent a link to photos of her daughter’s wedding.
Both weddings were large and beautiful. I greatly enjoyed viewing both sets of photos.
However, I enjoyed the latter set even more. The difference?
The website for the former wedding contained more than 1000 photos. The photos were wonderful. But after viewing a few hundred, I felt tired and confused. I thought, “I wish someone had shown me only about 50 of the best photos.”
The website for the latter wedding did just that. Although it contained fewer photos, I obtained more idea of what the wedding was like.
Why am I saying this? Because a similar situation exists for tables and figures in papers reporting research.
Often, drafts of papers contain many tables and figures. Each table or figure may be important to the author—just as every wedding picture may be important to the newly married couple.
However, papers with many tables and figures tend to overwhelm and confuse readers. And journals often lack room for many tables and figures.
In general, authors should include only tables and figures important to the main points of the paper. The resulting paper will then be clearer and more publishable. Tables and figures that might interest only a few readers can sometimes be included as an online supplement or posted on the author’s website.
Wishing you a good week! —Barbara
when less can be more
Posted by Charles Anane at 12 January 2010 12:49 PM
thanks for the clarity on adding unnecessary stuff instead of figures and tables. sometimes any one of the two will be enough