Drafts

There are a multitude of reasons why there were differences between the two figures. Most of them, like the differences between Photo A in the two figures, the size of the box and labels, and the pin drop on the map are a product of poor explanation. Improper or vague instruction could have mislead Colin as he took the photographs and assembled the figure. Upon reviewing the methods submitted, it became clear to me that some aspects lacked essential details which would have proved beneficial when drafting the replicate figure. Conversely, there are some differences that arose as a result of factors that can’t be controlled. For example, In the photograph of the environment in Figure Two, the weather is entirely different than that in Figure One thus the photograph is brighter. Other factors like varying times of day also played a role in this as the angle of the sun could affect how bright the resulting photo is. All in all the resulting differences served as a valuable learning experience. Each one showed just how important details are and how attention to writing said details is even more essential.

 

Abstract:

One of the fundamental characteristics of any scientific work is its capacity to be replicated by other scientists in order to prove its veracity. In this Methods Project, I designed a multipanel figure and wrote my methods for creating it so that another student could follow my instructions and make the most accurately possible replicate figure. The objective of this project was to learn how important it is in science to take into account the factors that may result in a failure to convey our message, and to improve our scientific communication skills in order to provide a set of instructions that is clear and leads to an accurate replication of our methods.

Acknowledgments:

I thank Erin Elizabeth Hardy (eehardy@umass.edu) for following my methods, and professor Brewer for his help in using Inkscape and his comments on this project.

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.

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.

The New York Times piece uses a large picture of a researcher scuba diving and touching a coral reef to further grab the readers’ attention. Just by looking at the photo the majority of readers can know generally something about what the article could be about. The next picture they used is an aerial view of the area damaged by bleaching. They also use a visual of an up and close bleached coral with a live marine species in front of it called a blenny. The image is very helpful for readers to understand the importance of the corals for other living organisms. The article lastly contains a photo of a sea turtle who has returned to the ruins of a bleaching event. Both of the last two images show how the life there is affected by the deaths of the environment.

            The Washington Posts' paper also uses an underwater photo of a coral reef in order to capture the reader’s attention. This photo is just of the corals themselves without a person involved in the photo. The article also uses a screenshot photo of a tweet made from one of the researchers of the study in order to show the reader the real-time results researcher Hughes is finding. This gives the reader more contexts and reassures the reader that the author has done his homework on the topic and research as opposed to just gathering the information from the article.  The screenshot contains a graph showing the differences in the number of corals bleached in different sectors that are being examined.  The Washington Post also includes another visual aid in the form of a video. Similar to the Arial view photo in the New York Times article, the video shows the aftermath of the 2016 bleaching event in order for the readers to see the actual damage that has been caused.

Upon side-by-side comparison of the two figures, a number of similarities and differences were observed. Firstly, the web at the center of the original figure was successfully located and the correct images were obtained. Moreover, the overall orientation of the three images contained within the original figure were faithfully reproduced. In addition, the format of the three figure labels were the same and placed in the same locations as the original. The box labeling the location was the same dimensions and the line extended to it was the same thickness. As for the other labels on the figure, the correct colors were used in the replicate and the general use of them was recreated correctly for the most part.

    Although many components of the replicate were similar to the original, a number of dimorphisms were observed as well. Each of the labels in the top left corner of each image had slightly smaller text compared to the original. In the image of the web, the line showing the length of the quarter for reference was longer and did not correspond with the length of the quarter. In addition, the number over the line was written in a larger font. For both the photograph of the web and the location, the background was slightly different and moisture was visible in the replicate. Next, the circle highlighting the area of the web was larger and covered a wider space.

    The map portion of the replicate contained the most differences. Firstly, it encompassed a larger region compared to the original and was more congested with labels. The text covering the student union was larger in font size displayed in a straight line. As for the red dot marking the absolute location of the web, the replicate version was larger. In addition, the line extending to the box labeled “location” extended off to the left rather than the right. The line also connected to a different part of the location label box and made contact with the dot and the label.

Each figure was intended to show a spider web somewhere on the University of Massachusetts campus, its relative location, and a map marking its absolute location. For the purpose of replicability, many factors needed to be controlled and clearly described in the methods section. The featured web was chosen because it was substantially sized, relatively easy to locate, and in an area that allowed for photography. Moreover, the methods were created with specific details in mind to increase similarity between the original and the replicate. These included the location of the web based on nearby geographical features, utilization of specific dimensions for both the images and the labels, and description of how each of the three images were obtained and oriented. Within this paper, the original methods, the original figure, the resultant replicate, and the consequential differences and similarities will be examined.

Another observational difference between these two figures was the variation in the close up image of the spider web (Figure 1.D & 2.D). In the original image, the camera was held approximately 4-5 inches away from the metal rail to show the web in as much detail as possible. The replicated photograph was taken farther away from the metal rail, and the web cannot be easily seen. The replicate photo of the spider web was not taken where the original photo was taken. The original photo of the web was taken above the handrail, and the replicate photo was taken below the handrail.  

The first noticeable difference is in the layout of the pictures. Whereas Figure 1 has equally sized pictures, Figure 2 does not. The photos in Figure 2 are all different sizes and do not evenly match alongside the edges.

The object used for scale is inconsistent between the two figures. Figure 1 used a blue pen for the scale object and Figure 1 used a black cased, mechanical pencil.

Another noticeable difference is in the labelling of the pictures. Here, there are several differences, although both figures did use the same letter for each picture. First, the positioning is different in each of the figures. Figure 1 has the letters placed in the upper left hand corner. Figure 2 has the letters in no one clear organizational spot. Another difference is that Figure 1 has lowercase letters while Figure 2 used upper case letters. The color of the labels is different too. Figure 1 used black letters in red boxes to make the labels, while Figure 2 used red letters without a box.

The pictures themselves are different as well. For the most part, it seems as though the same web and area were photographed, but for Figure 2 A, the photo is put in upside down, which is noticeable by the pencil that was used for scale. Additionally, Figure 1 A is closer to the web and has less of the vent visible than in Figure 2 A. For images A-C, they appear sharper in Figure 1 than in Figure 2. Again, Figure 1 B is closer to the vent than in Figure 2 B. There is also an angular difference, seen to be looking down in Figure 1 B, where Figure 2 B is more face on. This is different from what is seen in part C of the panels. Figure 1 C is backed further away from the vents this time than Figure 2 C and has wooden doors available. Figure 2 C is almost perpendicular to the vent and is closer. The doors are not seen, but a pair of shoes are. Figure 1 does not have any feet or legs partially seen in the picture. Lastly is part D of the panels. Both show the correct location, the Morrill Science Center, but more noticeable is that fact that Figure 1 D shows the figure in a street map view, whereas Figure 2 D shows a satellite view and thus the actual building and surrounding elements are visible. To this effect, Figure 1 D shows a wider view of the area, including parts of roadways and the campus pond. Figure 2 D shows the road immediately next to the building.