Editing 1945: Scientific Paper Graph Quality
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
==Explanation== | ==Explanation== | ||
− | {{ | + | {{incomplete|Needs explanation of why the quality of graphs might have gone up outside of the PowerPoint/MSPaint era, instead of staying flat.}} |
− | {{w| | + | {{w|Microsoft Paint}} was first introduced in 1985, and {{w|Microsoft PowerPoint}} debuted in 1990. As easy-to-use tools, these allowed for the easy creation of graphs by computer users. The comic implies that these are responsible for decreasing the overall quality of graphs in scientific papers, presumably by enabling a large number of inexperienced designers, and encouraging certain kinds of designs that are ineffective for communicating scientific results. |
− | The title text states that among the bad quality graphs, the ones “with qualitative, vaguely-labeled axes and very little actual data” are the worst. While this may indicate that the problem with PowerPoint era graphs is that they seem to focus on getting the point across (qualitative as in “you get the idea”) over accuracy (little actual data), this is more | + | {{w|Microsoft_PowerPoint#Use_it_less|Critics of PowerPoint}}, such as {{w|Edward_Tufte#Criticism_of_PowerPoint|Edward Tufte}}, have argued that the software is ill-suited for reporting scientific analyses. Many scientific journals nowadays explicitly forbid the use of PowerPoint in their [https://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/prep/prep_revfigs.xhtml instructions for authors.] |
+ | |||
+ | The title text states that among the bad quality graphs, the ones “with qualitative, vaguely-labeled axes and very little actual data” are the worst. While this may indicate that the problem with PowerPoint era graphs is that they seem to focus on getting the point across (qualitative as in “you get the idea”) over accuracy (little actual data), this is more than a little self-deprecating, as the comic itself features exactly that sort of lambasted graph. The vertical axis labeled “good” and “bad” is entirely qualitative, the horizontal axis manages to use numbers and still be vague by labeling the area between the ticks as decades instead of labeling the ticks, the definition of what constitutes the ‘PowerPoint / MSPaint era’ is entirely unclear, and it is doubtful that any actual data was used to make the graph – certainly there are no actual data points indicated. Its quality is doubtful, and it might represent more of an impression, or opinion, than an actual fact. | ||
==Transcript== | ==Transcript== | ||
− | + | {{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}} | |
− | :'''General quality of charts and graphs in scientific papers''' | + | :'''General quality of charts and''' |
+ | :'''graphs in scientific papers''' | ||
:[A graph is shown with the y-axis on the origin labeled "bad", on the arrowhead labeled "good", and the x-axis being a timeline labeled with decades from 1950s to 2010s.] | :[A graph is shown with the y-axis on the origin labeled "bad", on the arrowhead labeled "good", and the x-axis being a timeline labeled with decades from 1950s to 2010s.] |