A bovine eye chart. Source (link dead in 2023)
by Elio
I have a complaint. Scientific papers can be quite demanding to read. So, why make life more difficult by making the legends of the figures so hard to read? My big complaint is that when a legend pertains to multiple parts, the letters corresponding to them are nearly invisible. Try finding the (c), (d), or (e) in the legend. For heaven’s sake, what is so hard about showing these in bold letters? Besides, life would be simpler if there were fewer images or if they weren’t grouped so tightly.
Next time you write a paper, tell the editor that you want the letters in figure legends to be in bold face. Thank you in the name of all of us.
Elio says:
Mercé rightly points out that the journal International Microbiology (see http://www.im.microbios.org/) has pioneered in the simple practice of using bold letters in the legends. This is an exciting journal that has been highly innovative since its inceptions, so don't be surprised. Disclosure: I have the honor of being a member of its Editorial Board.
Ami: there are several journal with the title "Journal of Negative Results". Just Google that. They may serve the purpose you so well expound.
Huila - you make a good point. But it's hard to strike the right balance for proper documentation. Even "Supplemental Material" can be abused.
Posted by: elio schaechter | May 14, 2011 at 07:40 AM