Graphical literacy: The quality of graphs in a large-circulation journal
Graphical literacy: The quality of graphs in a large-circulation journal
复制标题
DOI：
10.1067/mem.2002.127327
复制
发表时间：
2002-09-01
影响因子：
6.2
通讯作者：
Close, RJH
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cooper, RJ;Schriger, DL;Close, RJH
研究目的：我们试图描述《美国医学杂志》（JAMA）中图表的数量和质量，将1999年发表的文章与2000年发表的文章进行对比，增加了专门的表格和图表编辑器。我们还试图比较质量的图表在美国医学会杂志的图形在急诊医学年鉴的质量。方法：两名评论家独立评估所有图表的原始研究文章，从12个随机选择的问题，美国医学会杂志，6从1999年和2000年，使用一个标准化的抽象形式。我们注意到图表类型、清晰度和完整性，并确定了内部差异。我们检查了图表和文章，以观察与文本的差异，观察效率的图形介绍，并确定是否描绘unaggregated data.Results的图形描绘从1998年1月开始的连续18期的急诊医学年鉴先前发表的研究结果进行了比较。结果如下：12期JAMA包含56篇研究文章，37篇有图表的文章中有64幅图表（1999年27篇文章中有28幅，2000年29篇文章中有36幅）。简单的条形图或点图（63%）占主导地位。我们很少遇到内部错误（8%），与文本矛盾（A），数字失真（6%），缺乏视觉清晰度（5%），不标准的图形约定（11%）或无关的装饰（0%）。图表通常定义了所有的符号（98%），但31%不是不言自明的;也就是说，尽管知道研究的设计和阅读图的图例，我们不能明确地解释图表。14%包含冗余。不常被主题数据（9%）或高级特征（15%）描绘的图表，如配对，符号维度或小倍数。48%（21/44）的图表没有说明潜在的分布，48%（26/54）没有描述重要的协变量，67%（14/21）没有描述数据中固有的配对。1999年和2000年的图表没有差别，但我们注意到2000年的图表更多。《急诊医学年鉴》和《美国医学会杂志》的图表质量相似，但图表在《美国医学会杂志》的原始研究文章中更常见。虽然单变量显示占主导地位，在这两个出版物中，有更多的双变量显示在急诊医学年鉴，但较少先进的图形features.Conclusion：在JAMA的图表是类似的急诊医学年鉴，虽然一般清楚，没有错误，往往未能描绘详细的数据。作者和编辑可以通过合并描述分层详细数据的图形格式来改进数据呈现。
Study objective: We sought to characterize the quantity and quality of graphs in the Journal of American Medicine (JAMA), contrasting articles published in 1999 with those published in 2000 after the addition of a dedicated tables and figures editor. We also sought to compare the quality of graphs in JAMA with the quality of graphs in Annals of Emergency Medicine.Methods: Two reviewers independently assessed all graphs in original research articles from 12 randomly chosen issues of JAMA, 6 each from 1999 and 2000, using a standardized abstraction form. We noted graph type, clarity, and completeness and identified internal discrepancies. We examined the graphs and articles to observe discrepancies with text, to observe efficiency of graph presentation, and to determine whether the graph portrayed unaggregated data.Results were compared with results from a previously published study of graphs from 18 consecutive issues of Annals of Emergency Medicine beginning in January 1998. Results: The 12 JAMA issues contained 56 research articles, with 64 graphs in the 37 articles that had graphs (28 in 27 1999 articles, 36 in 29 2000 articles). Simple bar or point charts (63%) predominated. We rarely encountered internal errors (8%), contradictions with text (A), numeric distortion (6%), lack of visual clarity (5%), nonstandard graphing conventions (11%), or extraneous decoration (0%). Graphs generally defined all symbols (98%), but 31% were not self-explanatory; that is, despite knowing the study's design and reading the figure's legend, we could not unambiguously interpret the graph. Fourteen percent contained redundancies. Graphs infrequently portrayed by-subject data (9%) or advanced features (15%) such as pairing, symbolic dimensionality, or small multiples. Forty-eight percent (21/44) of graphs did not illustrate the underlying distribution, 48% (26/54) did not depict important covariates, and 67% (14/21) did not portray pairing inherent in the data. There were no differences between 1999 and 2000 graphs, although we noted more graphs in the 2000 issues. Graph quality was similar in Annals of Emergency Medicine and JAMA, but graphs were more common in the original research articles in JAMA. Although univariate displays predominated in both publications, there were more bivariate displays in Annals of Emergency Medicine but fewer advanced graphic features.Conclusion: The graphs in JAMA were similar to those in Annals of Emergency Medicine and, although generally clear and without errors, often failed to depict detailed data. Authors and editors could improve data presentations by incorporating graphic formats that depict stratified, detailed data.