keep tables, figures, and text separate (but together)

 


Keep Tables, Figures, and Text Separate
(but Together)

 

Separation is not the end of love; it creates love.

― Nancy Friday

 

Text, tables, and figures should exist independently.

 

A good paper has legible text, tables, and figures; however, for them to work together, they have to work apart. What I mean is that the text, tables, and figures each ideally stand on their own independent of each other. You need to describe your full story in your text using the tables and figures as support/evidence/exhibits, and each of your tables and figures should be understandable without the text or other figures and tables.

Let’s say your advisor drops the tables and figures of your draft thesis at the airport as she heads out on vacation. She should still be able to read your text on the plane and understand your work. Furthermore, when the chair of the Nobel committee happens across one of your figures blowing through the airport, he can pick it up, understand what it is showing, and award you a well deserving prize in Stockholm.

Among the three—text, tables, and figures—the text is the most important. The text is the star (after all, you read a paper) and the tables and figures are supporting actors—important but supporting the text. Along those lines, the text should be written such that it stands on its own.

The most egregious flaunting of this “rule” is including a figure and then simply stating in the text

Figure 8 shows water levels in the aquifer.

and then expecting the reader to drop everything to go look at Figure 8, discern what Figure 8 shows, interpret Figure 8, and then interpret why Figure 8 is important for the paper. If you include Figure 8 in the paper, then it deserves a discussion. If Figure 8 doesn’t deserve a discussion, then it shouldn’t be in the paper in the first place.

Let’s say, after a long day at your place of science, you proudly put the finishing touches on Figure 8. Feeling pretty good about yourself, you stop in at the brew pub to have a libation. While enjoying the spoils of victory from the creation of Figure 8, you see your object of procreative desire at the pub. Normally, you wouldn’t even think of approaching this person, but since you are riding the high tides of victory from completing Figure 8 and sporting mild alcohol-induced self-confidence, you approach said person, offer your best come-hither face, and suavely state, with a wink, “You know, this evening I made Figure 8.”

Good luck with that.

I hate to break it to you, but no one cares that you made Figure 8. What they care about is what Figure 8 does to advance science and understanding. Let’s revisit the end of the previous scenario with what should have happened:

Normally, you wouldn’t even think of approaching this person, but since you are riding the high tides of victory from completing Figure 8 and sporting mild alcohol-induced self-confidence, you approach said person, offer your best come-hither face, and suavely state, with a wink, “You know, this evening I mapped the potentiometric surface of the Trinity Aquifer and found evidence that the aquifer is contributing base flow to the Guadalupe River.”

Are those wedding bells I hear?

Don’t simply direct a reader to a figure and table and expect them to figure it out on their own. Tables and figures are there to support the text and your conclusions in the text. They are supporting evidence for the skeptical reader to see that your conclusions are supported.

Let’s revisit the Figure 8 sentence with a better come-hither:

Water levels in the aquifer range from 250 to 400 feet above sea level and indicate a general flow direction from west to east (Figure 8).

Note how I have stated a conclusion and reference Figure 8 in parentheses. The focus here is what is important (your findings) and not the graphical representation of your findings.  

A less egregious mistake is directly directing your reader to a table or figure:

The potentiometric surface for the Trinity Aquifer inflects upstream on the Guadalupe River, suggesting that the aquifer is contributing base flow to the river. See Figure 8.

This might seem minor, but it’s distracting. It’s the same as writing a scientific paper for a dog:

The potentiometric surface for the Trinity Aquifer bends upstream on the Guadalupe River, suggesting that the aquifer is contributing base flow to the river... SQUIRREL!!!!!

If you’ve done your job in the text, a reader shouldn’t have to SEE FIGURE 8 at that very moment. Much more preferred:

The potentiometric surface for the Trinity Aquifer bends upstream on the Guadalupe River, suggesting that the aquifer is contributing base flow to the river (Figure 8).

Let the reader decide if they want to see Figure 8. The goal here is for a reader to read through your paper, front to back, without having to look at the figures or tables to understand what you did. Figures and tables are supporting evidence to your story, but your story should be complete in your prose.

Along those same lines, each figure and table need to stand on their own. You should not only describe what it shows in the caption

Figure 8: Potentiometric surface of the Trinity Aquifer.

but also a summary of the interpretation

Figure 8: The potentiometric surface of the Trinity Aquifer. Note how water-level elevations bend upstream on the Guadalupe River, suggesting that the aquifer is contributing base flow to the river.

Additionally, there should not be any undefined acronyms or abbreviations (or, even better, no acronyms or abbreviations). You do not want to force a reader to dig through the paper in search of the meaning of an acronym (assuming you even defined it). If you have to use acronyms or abbreviations (and sometimes you do due to space limitation), be sure to explain them on each figure and table or in the caption. 

 

copyright Robert E. Mace 2025

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

table of contents

Image
 Table of Contents  As this is a work in progress (and I writing sections at random), check back for new content! Staying Between the Outlines   Keep things where things belong Introducing the Introduction Write an introduction with context and purpose.     Keep It Simple Use short words and simple writing. AAaaC (Avoid Acronyms at all Costs [pronounced “Aaack!”]) Do not use acronyms or abbreviations in your writing. Be Active, Not Passive Write in the active voice. If You Write Something, Cite Something If you write it, cite it.  Use the Oxford Comma Use the Oxford (Serial) Comma. List with Logic Items in a list need a reason for their ordering. Don’t Orphan Headers Each header should have at least one paragraph after it. Keep Tables, Figures, and Text Separate (but Together) Text, tables, and figures should exist independently.  Steering the Authorship Include rather than exclude. Breaking Bad Watch how headings, tables, and paragraphs brea...
Read more

staying between the outlines

Image
keep things where things belong Outlining technical papers and reports is not exactly janitorial science. My basic go-to outline is: - Abstract - Introduction - Background - Methods - Results and Discussion - Conclusions - Acknowledgments - References Yawn.  For a report, the “Abstract” will become the longer “Executive Summary” instead. If I’m feeling a little snappy, I might change the section titles to be a bit more descriptive of the work at hand. For example, here’s the outline for a report I coauthored on a review of springs in Texas: - Executive Summary - Introduction - Database Development and Evaluation of Spring Status - Spring Analysis - Fractal Analysis - Future Work - Conclusions - Acknowledgments - References - Appendix In this case, “Database Development and Evaluation of Spring Status” stands in for “Methods” and “Spring Analysis,” “Fractal Analysis,” and "Future Work" stand in for “Results and Discussion.” In fact, "Fractal Analysis" really exists a...
Read more

introducing the introduction

Image
  Introducing the Introduction   I assume I don’t need an introduction. ― Anne Rice   Write an introduction with context and purpose.   Write an introduction that places your work into the broader context, establishes why your work is important, identifies the research gap, states the purpose, and provides the hypotheses or research questions. The Introduction is where “The Poetry” is. I call this The Poetry because the Introduction is where you creatively (some of us more creatively than others…) place your work into the greater context of the world, first painting with broad strokes and then carefully funneling down to the details. In the Introduction, you want your reader to understand the importance of your topic (the Why), the need for the research (the What), what you researched (more What), and, briefly, how you investigated it (the How). Accordingly, I follow a simple recipe when writing the introduction. The ingredients ar...
Read more