Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Mahrer, K. D. Search for Related Content

How do you figure?

University of Denver, Colorado, U.S

Corresponding author: kmahrer@du.edu

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

OK, I'm irritated! I just reviewed a manuscript for GEOPHYSICS that had 27 figures! Actually, it had about 80 figures, counting a's, b's, etc. This article does not need 27 compound figures. The manuscript discusses valuable work, but it's not definitive work or a data reference source. Unfortunately, after working hard on a project, the authors fell victim to a pitfall—inflating a project beyond its actual value. Inflated work engenders inflated manuscripts which engender more—many more—figures than are necessary.

Compounding this problem, some authors choose their figures by nonspecific methods, i.e., gut feeling, random infusion, ethereal inspiration, ease of manufacture, and "just because." Does it sound familiar? The common thread of these methods is one route to evil in technical writing—lack of planning. Whatever your method, consider the following new strategy.

First, put your project into perspective. Not all work results in landmark papers, so don't inflate. Be realistic. Find its value to readers (not to writers) and stick with it. Next, assuming that you have an outline or a firm idea of what you intend to write, compile a list of all intended figure titles. Using only the list, chart your manuscript for completeness. Does the list give . . . [Full Text of this Article]