Drafts

In addition, I precisely described how to create the arrow label on the setting picture by using the marker feature on Inkscape. I can conclude that the arrow used in the replica was not constructed using this feature because it does not have the arrow marker at the end of a straight, bold line. Although the arrow was dissimilar, the reader angled the arrow in the appropriate direction. The changes I would make going forward would be to write a more precise description of the exact location the spider web, provide a more in depth explanation on the creation of the labels on the figure, and include every observation present on each picture in order to obtain an outcome similar to the original multi-panel scientific figure.

The differences observed between the two figures are partially due to the lack of detail explaining where the web was located, which symbols were present on the map, what font and size the lettered labels were. The differences among the arrow and lettered labels were due to the incomplete outcome based on the procedure given. The main difference between the two figures was that the web used by the reader was not the web used in the original figure. This may be due to the limited detail given in the methods section about the location of the web. The relative location on campus and the building was described in the methods section given to the reader. Yet, I could have explained which side of the hallway the groove of the wall was found depending on the staircase the reader approached from. This would have narrowed down the location of the web in the third floor hallway of Morrill II and reduced the chance of variability in the result. The specifications made in the Methods section as to what camera angle and settings, such as flash, were not very clear and may have led to some confusion for the reader when trying to recreate the figure.

The replicate figure, known as Figure 1, created by the reader had eight differences to the original multi-panel scientific figure, Figure 2. The main difference was that the reader did not find the exact location of the spider web I intended them to use. The reader took pictures in the same building and hallway, yet not the same corner/groove in the wall. Another difference is that the orientation of the web pictures in Figure 1 are different from the web pictures in Figure 2. The web pictures are slightly more offset to the right in Figure 1. The lighting in the web pictures of Figure 2 were brighter than those in Figure 1.

 One of the most important ways to credit a scientist’s work is through replication. Replicating a scientists’ work validates and reduces variability in experimental results. In the Methods project I conducted in the Writing in Biology Class at the University of Massachusetts Amherst in the Fall of 2018, the process of replication was used to evaluate observation and inference skills. The goal was to have a reader recreate a similar multi-panel scientific figure to the one that the writer had created, only using a description of the process used to develop it. The multi-panel figure contained at least three pictures: a close up picture of a spider web, a picture of the relative location or setting of the web, and a map of the area on campus that the spider web was found.

The markings on the pictures of each figure are also different from the other figure.  In the original, the letters labeling the picture are in the bottom left corner, whereas they are in the top left corner in the replica.  The arrows pointing to the location of the spider web are on different pictures in each figure. The original has the arrows on the environment picture and the replica has them placed on the close-up picture.

The two map pictures varied.  The two maps show different areas of campus.  The replica map also has labels on the map already that the original map does not.  There are labels added to the original map, while all labels on the replica map are a part of the picture itself.  There is no circle showing the area of the map in which the spider web was found in the replica map, but there is on the original map.

The pictures themselves also differ from original to replicate.  Due to the quality of the pictures and lack of arrows on the environment picture of the replica, it is difficult to tell if the two spider webs are the same. The appearance of the stones relative to the spider web is different between the original and replicate in the close up picture.  In the environmental picture of the original figure, the curb and a blue building are visible in the background, but in the replica picture an orange building is visible and the curb is not. There is also a different number of posts on the fence visible in the replica vs. the original.

In the fall semester of 2018 in my Writing in Biology Class, I conducted a project where the purpose was to take a picture of a spider web, it’s habitat, and a map of the area.  Then I had to write a methods section being precise enough so that someone else could attempt to replicate my image exactly. After my procedure was followed there were many differences in the original vs the replica.  In Figure A and B they are entirely different as the spider web and the tree itself were different, most likely because of the foul weather all that week. The panel itself was also different in the text used and the shape and size of each picture in the collage.  Figure C, the map, also differed as the replica was the entire map and the original was zoomed in around the area searched. These differences can be attributed to lack of precision in the methods section. The overall panels were very different in the way they were presented and edited.  

For the map, I googled “umass amherst campus map” on my iphone and clicked on the first link which brought me to a pdf of the campus, in the upper left hand corner it said “UMass Amherst General Location Campus Map September 2018”. I took a screenshot of this and then in my photos I edited this and cropped the image so that it showed only the Integrative Learning Center, the campus pond, the Fine Arts Center, Morrill Science Center and Wilder, University Club, Shade Tree Lab and Clark. I then clicked on the three little dots in a circle on the edit screen and chose the highlighter marker and made it red. I made a circle around Morrill 2 and made a dot near the back entrance where I took the pictures of the spider.

Once I had all the pictures I emailed them to myself and opened them in Inkscape. They all opened individually so I copied and pasted two of the images into one of the inkscapes so that this inkscape had all 3 images. The picture of the campus map was placed in the top left corner right next to the image of the doors to Morrill. Underneath those two I placed the picture of the spider web.

I observed a total of four main differences between my original multi-panel figure (Figure 1) and the replicated figure (Figure 2). I observed differences in the original photographs taken and the replicated photographs. First of all, it is difficult to see the spider web in the close up photograph of the spider web. In the replicated Panel A, I mostly see the pipe of the radiator rather than the web. I also observed that the color and positioning of the pencil used in the replicated photo is different from my original. The pencil I used was yellow while the replicated photograph has a red pencil. For the replicated Panel B, I noticed that the photograph did not include the same amount of the rug, doorway, or wall as my original Panel B. The replicated image included the ceiling in the Morril 4 hallway, but my original photo did not.

In addition to differences in the photographs, I found differences in the editing and formatting of the multi-panel figures. Panel A and Panel B look much narrower and taller than my original Panel A and Panel B. In the replicated figure, the letters A, B, and C are bigger than the boxes they are meant to fit in. The letters are also missing a period after them. The boxes for letters A and B appear to be in a different position than the boxes in the original multi-panel figure. Finally, I noticed that the sizing and placement of the black star varies between the two multi-panel figures.

There are a total of 11 differences visible when comparing panel A of the two figures. In Figure 1:A the lamp of the lightpost is on, shining light down onto the spiderweb. This light is absent in Figure 2:A. In Figure 1:A there is a ruler held to the left of the lightpost. This ruler is absent in Figure 2:A, however a student ID card is held beneath the spiderweb with a purple flower visible to the left in the background behind the lightpost. There is also a rockwall visible to the left of the lightpost in Figure 2:A. Less of the top jutting portion of the lightpost, which houses the lamp, is visible in Figure 1:A. This portion of the lightpost is wet in Figure 2:A. Figure 2:A also shows more of the sidewalk to the right of the lightpost, has the door to Morrill 1 visible in the background, and the brick wall of Morrill 1 visible to the left of the lightpost. Overall Figure 1:A is darker than Figure 2:A.

A total of 12 differences were observed between Panel B of the two figures. The lightpost present in Figure 1:B has its lamp turned on while it is off in Figure 2:B. The curb and sidewalk in front of the lightpost is visible in Figure 1:B. Nearly all of the tree behind the lightpost is visible in Figure 2:B while the top half is absent in Figure 1:B. Furthermore, the brick wall of Morrill 1 is visible behind the lightpost, including windows. Figure 1:B has the lower right of the door, but with the addition of a portion of brick wall which is absent in Figure 2:B. There is also a purple flower in Figure 2:B which is absent in Figure 1:B. There is a grey rectangluar structure imbeded in the ground present in each figure, however in Figure 1:B, the lightpost occludes this structure. Lastly, the ground and the top portion of the lamp is wet in Figure 2:B