4/5/2023 0 Comments Trend line scidavis![]() A figure should be easily read/understood within few seconds - if it takes you longer to understand what is going on on the figure, it might be too much information. Some universal rules seem to stand out - invariant of the plotting software being used:ฤก) A figure should contain as few elements possible required to convey the information/idea/argument. Which actually translates to "publication quality" which is relative depending on where you publish. IMO, what makes a figure "professional quality" is defined by the journal/publisher rules. I'm more interested in the things we don't normally think about, which are normally set according to some plotting program's defaults, but which could be changed to improve the look of the plot. logarithmic scale, but those are choices that we always think about regardless of which plotting program we are using. In other words, if my goal is to create the best looking figures possible for inclusion in a scientific paper, what design choices are generally recommended towards that goal? Obviously one has to choose the appropriate kind of plot, e.g. But what does it mean for a figure to be "professional" in this context? that looks as good as those that come from ORIGIN. However, most plot-creation programs are quite configurable and it stands to reason that with the right settings for things like tick location and labeling, font and color choices, label alignment, and so on, I should be able to make a figure with Mathematica/matplotlib/Gnuplot/etc. I've heard people say that plots produced by ORIGIN tend to look polished and "professional," whereas plots produced by Mathematica do not.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |