Example 0: This figure would be unnecessary in a scientific article because it conveys only a small amount of information that could easily be stated in the text. Thus, the figure could be replaced by the statement: “The CCC in Speech Language Pathology is held by 35,828 ASHA members; 5,359 hold the CCC in Audiology; 1,238 have dual certification.”
Example 1: “a” shows the figure as submitted. There are three problems: (i) the legend has been included in the figure, (ii) the code label (pre, post) is hanging off the side and thereby increasing the width of the figure, (iii) the label “Frequency” is beside the axis instead of along it.
“b” shows the figure as published. It has been amended by: (i) cutting off the legend (legends should be typed as the final page(s) of the manuscript. They will be typeset by the printer and placed beneath the figure.), (ii) the code and frequency labels have been cut off and glued in the correct places, (iii) the amended figure has been photocopied.
Note that the width of the figure has been reduced by 25%. (This is a relatively innocuous example of hanging labels - some are much longer and increase figure width accordingly.)
“c” shows two further modifications which are not essential but could be made. First, the figure has been boxed by drawing two extra lines with a black pen. Second the word “frequency” has been enlarged by making an enlarged photocopy and then sticking it back on the original size figure.
This example shows how figures can be modified readily without any special skills or anything more than normal office equipment. (To be completely correct, the figure should have a label on the horizontal axis but that could be too cluttered in this instance.)
Example 2: This is an unsatisfactory figure.
“a” is the figure as published. Note that even in full page width the writing and data points are undesirably small. Indeed, there is some possible ambiguity. Is the circled mark really a data point or is it just a speck of dirt?
“b” shows the figure reduced to single column width. It is obviously illegible and yet a simple figure of this type should be produced in single column width and could be if the writing and data points were the right size (i.e. much larger).
Example 3: Example of a block figure. Two points to note: (i) the width has been reduced by use of a common vertical axis (the right side of the left panel serves as the left side of the right panel) and a single vertical axis label, (ii) the height has been reduced by using slash lines to indicate a break in the vertical axis.
Example 4: “a” and “b” show, respectively, the figure in its original size and in publication size. Note that, if a figure is drawn in a large size, then the lettering and data points need to be very large. Note also that only two sizes of lettering are used and the smaller size is not greatly smaller than the larger size. This is an example of a figure where it is necessary to label both the left and right vertical axes because different scales are shown.
Example 5: A more complex block figure. Contrary to usual practice, it was thought undesirable to use common axes because some of the data points are close to the axes and might be visually confused with those of the next figure. However, the grid lines probably should have been deleted to give a less cluttered appearance.
If this figure were submitted to this journal, then the writing would be a bit too small. (It was, in fact, satisfactory because the figure was submitted to a journal with a larger page size.)
