In my opinion it does. Especially for review papers. A paper can benefit substantially from good visualizations, it makes the content more understandable and clear. Other scientists like to cite this work over a paper more difficult to understand.
Moreover, scientists have presentations in meetings and seminars all the time. In the introduction, the best available figure in their field of work is used quite often. This will encourage people in the audience to write down the reference. I bet they will cite the original paper next time they write something related to the subject. (of course the research has to be good).
I'm very curious to hear your opinion about this.
i totally agree with you. figures provide a huge add-value. for example, if you are writing a review paper and you group the papers from the lit. rev. graphically it gives the reader a fast overview. these kind of graphics tend to be cited quite often and as a consequence the whole paper as well. For this reason whole science fields like data visualization exist.
I agree with you but I think that this behavior it's not restricted to good visualization only. I think that depends on how many reusable artifacts has the article inside. E.g. a good tables, bulleted lists, concrete definitions, diagrams, charts, etc.. This kind of artifacts are the ones that make me cite some articles instead of others...
I agree that good figures make easier understanding of article messages. The quality of the work or idea in the article is important; figures or graphic may can facilitate conveying the message. One possible reason for your second question besides what Jana said maybe page limitation of some publisher that limits the space to give additional figures.
Sorry in advance for this rather long (and late) rant. But as an illustrator myself, I have a strong opinion on this one.
The notion that good visualization, illustration or visuals in general are merely a superficial "dressing up" of hard facts is very common. Yet wrong, I believe.
Imagine the following scenario:
A scientist publishes a paper consisting only of page after page of raw, uncommented data and a heap of illegible notes, scribbled on the margins. That may be good, perhaps even outstanding research. But no one -except the author - would gain any insight. In the context of science, it would be worthless.
So he begins labelling his spreadsheets. Maybe even visualizing the raw data as graphs. He then continues with transcribing and ordering his notes, finally condensing them to the essence. He later writes captions for the figures and defines chapters to structure his text. He might even decide that a 8pt font size doesn't help and choose a appropriate font size.
All those decisions are - in some way - "dressing up" original research. After all, data doesn't change, the conclusion still upholds. Still, would anyone argue about their importance? They all help to communicate our ideas to other people. The same goes for figures, photos, illustrations and every kind of visual form. They are tools to communicate and the fact that it is possible to blind some with impressive imagery doesn't devalue them. It only shows what powerful tools they can be.
My conclusion: It may be true that the actual research doesn't become much better by creating/adding good visualizations, but any paper, article or poster you publish will. And it is this sharing of knowledge, not merely gathering, that is essential to modern science.
However, if this correlates with a increase in citations, I have no idea.
In a word: maybe.
REVIEW papers, often a key to getting a timely grasp on a topic and thus may be the first place one goes in literature research, are cited for the same reason (if the material merits), and they usually contain at least some illustrations from the original sources.
That said, however, review papers are often the worst-illustrated papers. Why? Review papers often use retouched figures from the sources: fudged and filtered until they are (nearly ) illegible, or printed with a moire pattern.
How come? Even if the reviewing author purchases licensing rights(!) from a reluctant publisher, they are not supplied with any print-quality files, I recently learned.
In my opinion, review papers should be granted "fair-use" copyrights (limited excerption) and publisher support, as they are not the originating authors. NOTE: As a medical illustrator, I am often asked for permission to use figures-- some that I may have drawn decades ago. As these may not be mine to license, I usually decline (or offer to reinvent for low or no fee)-- in that it is possible that *I might infringe on my OWN earlier work! However, beyond numerical data, I have yet to see the figure that cannot be reinvented.
I agree as well ...
And now makes sense some request I received from my current adviser... smile
I agree with all. offcourse one can understand the concept very easily with illustrations than wordings or oral presentations.
As Dr Frank Netter used to say to me, "You can talk-around a topic in words, but when you make a picture, it has to be IN there."
A good figure worth a thousand words. I think this is still true... But it also depends on the field in which you would like to write a review...
Scientific communication and effective scientific writing is not only about words, it is a complex process, I mean it all is about semiotics - words, sentences, paragraphs, their arrangement, colors, lines, scales, tables, charts, figures, videos... all these play role and the complex paper is better than a sequence of words without any spice...
A picture/ image tells thousands of words in a click of eyes. That is why I agree with this...
I wish that writers of review papers are more-able in future to have elements redrawn from the same point of view-- making them more easily compared. Likewise, micro graphs of like structures might best be *oriented similarly, magnified accordingly. This is not actual manipulation of data, and any efforts to aid visual literacy of reviewers and readers MAY aid in acceptance. Ensure that your grant app includes professional services where needed, and avoid assuming you can DIY.
it does, I completely agree with you! For instance, when I start to read a new paper, I immediately observe the figures, and I am very careful on preparing of figures of my papers too. If figures are painstaking, smooth and clear, paper can be more attractive for readers..
I think it's difficult to get data for this question, because "quality" has to be evaluated. However, there is clear relationship between cover stories/images and citation. Reference: 10.1177/0963662517706607
Luk Cox I agree to the proposition.
But do we have any theory/paper(s) to support such a proposition?
Yes, an article with a figure gets more visualizations than an article without a figure. There is a blog article in Mind the Graph's blog, named How to increase the dissemination of your research, that explains how and why articles with figures get more citations. I recommend the reading.
https://mindthegraph.com/blog/how-to-disseminate-your-research/#.YQHIYY5KhPY
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Asia
- India