The layout of the pictures and the labels is one of the most obvious differences presented in the figures. This is from a lack of exact actions and clarity in the methods section. The methods said that the images should be “adjusted to about equivalent sizes”, when in actuality, they should have been the exact same sizes. Furthermore, the exact width and height of each picture is provided by the inkscape program and should have been provided to remedy this inconsistency. As far as the labelling, the methods section provides that a red box should be made for each of the labels and a lowercase letter used. It is true that a color was not specifically given for the text. Additionally, the methods section provided where the location of the box and letter labels should go. However, given that the pictures of figure 2 were not the same size, the final adjustment given in the methods section may have distorted the picture further from the original Figure 1. This could also be fixed if the exact sizes of the images were provided.
Comments
Making Judgements/ Conversational Language
I know we all do it, but one thing I would suggest is not making judgments and using conversational language in scientific writing. For example, you write "one of the most obvious differences". The only suggestion I can make is possibly changing that to something like "the layout of the pictures differs between the original and replicate figures". Also, I wouldn't write about HOW you left things out of the methods and that's why the differences were caused, but write more about WHAT caused those differences. In other words, write that the height and width were not adjusted in Inkscape causing the figures to look different instead of "I should have included height and width to avoid this".
Hi! One thing I noticed was
Hi! One thing I noticed was that in your second to last sentence you forgot to capitalize the "f" in Figure 2.