amdicicco's blog

One of the most important aspects in the science community is the ability to replicate processes and get the same results. In order to be able to achieve this goal, clear and concise writing is required. In Fall 2018 the Writing in Biology Class at the University of Massachusetts Amherst conducted a project to observe differences between the two figures. Figure 1 was created by me and Figure 2 was created by another student who followed my methods section to try to create a perfect replicate of the Figure I already created. The following section focuses on the subject of the figure including why it was selected, and the factors that were attempted to be controlled in the writing of the methods section. 

Professor Brewer gave the class the subject of spider webs to focus the figures on. The photographing of a spider web is not the easiest. Webs are fairly thin, and hard to see. Spider webs come in many different shapes and sizes and by using a spider web the class was forced to follow methods very carefully to try to get two figures that looked similar.

The project focused around the photography of a spider web, which is why some of the biggest factors in causing discrepancies were camera settings. Figure 2 included more of the environment than Figure 1, which can be seen by more of French Hall showing. The number of feet was given as to where to take the picture of the environment from, so it is possible that the phone used for Figure 2 had a different focal length. If it was specified to use an iPhone 7 plus, this could have been avoided. In addition, in Figure 1 the bush appears to be darker. This was most likely because the flash was on when the photograph was taken for Figure 2. When the photo for Panel A in Figure 1 was taken the camera was on 1% zoom, in the second figure the web appears closer which suggests that the camera was zoomed in.

The project focused around the photography of a spider web, which is why some of the biggest factors in causing discrepancies were camera settings. Figure 2 included more of the environment than Figure 1, which can be seen by more of French Hall showing. The number of feet was given as to where to take the picture of the environment from, so it is possible that the phone used for Figure 2 had a different focal length. If it was specified to use an iPhone 7 plus, this could have been avoided. In addition, in Figure 1 the bush appears to be darker. This was most likely because the flash was on when the photograph was taken for Figure 2. When the photo for Panel A in Figure 1 was taken the camera was on 1% zoom, in the second figure the web appears closer which suggests that the camera was zoomed in.

Access to materials is a factor that was involved in creating differences between the two figures. For example, without access to a gift card a Ucard had to be used. The gift card and the Ucard are the same size so it was ok for scale, but the look of them were different. In addition, the maps were from different places. Due to the maps not being the same the coloring of them were different. The website that the map was from was featured in the methods so the use of a different map points to being unable to access the map used in Figure 1.

The photograph of the close-up spider webs placed in Panel A in the figures are not identical. In Figure 1 a gift card was used for scale, but in Figure 2 a Ucard was used. In Figure 2 the Ucard was placed on the left side of the web, instead of near the bottom of the web like it was Figure 1. In addition, the spider web in Figure 2 was took up less of the figure than In Figure 1 the bush appears darker than it does in Figure 2. Another observed difference in this panel is the web. In Figure 2 the web is more visible than it is in Figure

The figures also included differences which were caused by not specific enough methods. For example, the methods did not mention that a person was walking in the crosswalk in the background. The methods also were not extremely specific when it came to creating the figure. This caused differences in label size, key size, and font size. In addition, it was not specified whether to create a border around the figure like seen in Figure 2. The methods said to create a key, but the font color, size or border thickness were not mentioned which played a factor in the differences between the figures. In addition, the methods mentioned that the location of the web was circled on the map, but it did not say how large the circle was.

The project focused around the photography of a spider web, which is why some of the biggest factors in causing discrepancies were camera settings. Figure 2 included more of the environment than Figure 1, which can be seen by more of French Hall showing. The number of feet was given as to where to take the picture of the environment from, so it is possible that the phone used for Figure 2 had a different focal length. If it was specified to use an iPhone 7 plus, this could have been avoided. In addition, in Figure 1 the bush appears to be darker. This was most likely because the flash was on when the photograph was taken for Figure 2. When the photo for Panel A in Figure 1 was taken the camera was on 1% zoom, in the second figure the web appears closer which suggests that the camera was zoomed in.

A map was included in the figure to show where the web was located.  To avoid copyright issues, the map was taken as a screenshot from OpenStreetMap.org. To find the location, I typed in the closest permanent fixture near the bush which was Franklin Dining Hall. OpenStreetMap.org is not too detailed so I screenshotted a larger area to show more buildings and the whole Permaculture Garden. This screenshot was wider than it was tall. The screenshot showed from the Shade Tree Lab past Clark Hall and the grass area past Franklin. Due to the large area covered in the map, I included a red circle which showed the exact location of the web on the bush. In order to not confuse the viewer, I also constructed a key in the bottom right-hand corner that showed the same circle and wrote location of web next to it. The key was placed onto a white background that was outlined in black to make it easily seen.

Panel C in both Figures contains a map, but the maps showed discrepancies between them. The maps included a different range. For example, Figure 2 showed French Hall, while Figure 1 showed none of French Hall. In addition, Figure 2 included Thatcher Road and University Club, while Figure 1 did not. The maps included the same colors, but the colors are placed in different places. For example, in Figure 1 the Permaculture Garden is shown as beige on the map, while it is shown as green in Figure 2. In Figure 2 there are 2 white rectangles that do not exist in Figure 1. A red pin is placed in Figure 2 that is not in Figure 1. The keys placed on Figure 1 and Figure 2 are of different sizes. In addition, the black outline around the key is of different thicknesses. Figure 1’s key was labeled as “Key”, while Figure 2’s was not. The key in Figure 2 has black writing and the key in Figure 1 has red writing. The circle superimposed on the maps are different sizes, with Figure 2’s being larger.