The three main differences between the original figure and the replicate were the sizing and orientation of the markings of the figure, the surrounding scenery, and the area encompassed by the map. This section looks at these differences in more detail and makes inferences on what portion of the methods section caused them.
The size and thickness differences in the labels, indicating lines, text, length lines, the dot on the map, and highlight circles were all caused by the same facet of the methods. Not including units of measurement with all of the dimensions in the methods led to a vagueness in the original sizes. Dimensions were meticulously included with each part of the labeling on the figure, but there were no associated units. Thus, the person tasked with the replication of the figure did not know which of the number of possible units was used in the original, causing the size differences.
As for the orientation of the figure markings, the methods described the general location, but did not go into enough detail. This caused the labels in the top left corners of parts A,B, and C to be positioned slightly past the borders of the figure and resulted in a lip at all three locations. Also stemming from the lack of detail pertaining to orientation, the “location” box in Part C was found on the left side in the replicate. I only specified that the label box was off to the side of the red dot in part C, with the connecting line at an approximate 45 degree angle. I did not say which side it was on, which led to the replicate having it on the left. The connector line made contact with the red dot and the location box in the replicate because I only said that they were connected without elaborating in the methods. I didn’t say to which part of the location box the line connected, and I didn’t mention that the line did not actually make contact with either the box or the dot in the original. All of these missing details resulted in the different orientation of the markings in part C of the replicate.
Recent comments