Many components of the figure were like the original, there were differences. These differences highlighted details that were missing from the methods section. One oversight that was at the root of a number of the differences was the lack of units included in the methods section. Each component of the figure was described with the dimensions in terms of the width and height, but none of them contained the type of unit being used. This resulted in the font appearing smaller in the component labels. Had I designated that the entire figure utilized millimeters as the unit of measurement, then the three label boxes would have had a font size that resembled the original more closely. Furthermore, the length and thickness of the red line over the quarter would have also been more like the original. More clearly stating that the line was meant to encompass the diameter of the quarter would have also increased similarity. The objects in the background were more difficult to control because of the weather during the week the replicate was created, thus the moisture seen in the replicate was not necessarily due to the instruction of the methods because the weather and time were stated. But, the images showing the location did not include the bike rack structure due to it not being stated in the methods that it was in the figure. I only stated the location from where the photograph was taken, not the details of the scenery.
Since the map portion contained the most differences, the part of the methods discussing its creation was not detailed enough. I did not clearly state the area shown in the map with other buildings or landmarks, and the resultant recreation was more zoomed out as a result. The abundance of labels on the replicate map also were also related to this because it showed a larger area. The text labeling the student union was written in a straight line in the replicate because I did not mention that wrote it on two separate lines in the methods. Much like the other labels and markings on the replicate, the red dot placed on the map was larger because I did not specify the units. Although the location box was correctly recreated, it extended to the left at a roughly 45 degree angle rather than the right because its directionality was not discussed in the methods. Similarly, the thin black line connecting the location dot to the location box was connected and overlapping in the replicate because I didn’t mention its connectivity.
In conclusion, the replicate figure was similar in many regards to the original but a number exclusions from the methods section made certain components vague. This vagueness led to the discussed differences between the two figures. Mainly, not including the units of measurement with all of the dimensions in the methods. The lack of detail in the map portion of the original was also highlighted by the resulting replicate figure. This projects certainly emphasized the importance of paying attention to details when creating a methods section so that the replication process can proceed as intended.
Recent comments