« Accelerated Approval And Its Discontents |
Main
| Databases and Money »
September 6, 2012
Graphical Abstract Tedium
Posted by Derek
Scrolling through my journal RSS feeds, a question occurs to me. What's the biggest cliché, the most overused trope in graphic abstracts? My nomination is the "row of glowing vials" to illustrate some new fluorescent/luminescent sensor molecule. Nothing wrong with a row of glowing vials per se, but man, has that image ever been done to death. (I'm just glad that I'm not working on anything of the kind, so I don't have to figure out what to show instead). Your nominations? Just think of what makes you grit your teeth as you glance over the journal table of contents, even before you've read the title of the paper, and you'll have it.
Update: as mentioned in the comments, if you want the TOC graphics that are each. . .special. . .in their own way, then look no further than TOCROFL.
Comments (19)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature
POST A COMMENT
- RELATED ENTRIES
- › AstraZeneca's Move To Hot, Happening Cambridge
- › Stealing A Compound, To Set Up in China
- › Tecfidera's Price
- › Novartis Loses the Glivec Patent Fight in India
- › ChemBark Closing Down (Update: Not Really!)
- › Fake Journals - But They'd Like Real Money
- › Chemical Probes Versus Drugs
- › Two New Books
1. Henry's cat on September 6, 2012 8:32 AM writes...
The faunafication of molecules. Great one in JACS atm.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja306042w
Permalink to Comment2. John Wayne on September 6, 2012 9:18 AM writes...
Lots of colors and cool graphics that depict very optimistic end uses of research combined with very sparse results.
Permalink to Comment3. The Iron Chemist on September 6, 2012 9:31 AM writes...
I second the glowing stuff. I'll also note that it seems to make so-so science more publishable. "Sure our mercury sensor is useless at detecting sub-micromolar concentrations and it only works in acetonitrile but it GLOWS! Oooooh!!!"
Permalink to Comment4. el perro grande on September 6, 2012 9:51 AM writes...
I think it has to be target molecules overlaid on a stock photo of the natural source (tree, sponge etc.).
Permalink to Comment5. Nils on September 6, 2012 9:58 AM writes...
Just make an image search for "chemicals" at your favourite web search engine, and you'll see - vials, with colorful stuff, and more vials, and more.
Permalink to Comment6. nitrosonium on September 6, 2012 10:00 AM writes...
Has KCN done away with the colored/shaded ring motif? i know those "structures" have been addressed here by Derek but those things (used to) annoy to no end when they popped up in the graphical abstracts.
Permalink to Comment7. Anonymous on September 6, 2012 10:02 AM writes...
There are so many bad abstract pictures that somebody started a blog:
http://tocrofl.tumblr.com/
Permalink to Comment8. Anonymous on September 6, 2012 11:51 AM writes...
Good link #7. There are definitely way too many smiley faces. Chemicals, as far as I know, don't have any emotions.
Permalink to Comment9. Myma on September 6, 2012 12:20 PM writes...
A "scientist" in a lab coat but sans safety glasses staring intently at test tube of colored liquid.
Permalink to Comment10. Anonymous on September 6, 2012 1:09 PM writes...
Pictures of cats wedged somewhere in a catalytic cycle.
Permalink to Comment11. nitrosonium on September 6, 2012 3:59 PM writes...
check out this gem of a graphical abstract:http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ic0352250
Permalink to Comment12. Jason on September 6, 2012 9:14 PM writes...
#11- I want to believe that someone made that complex just to be able to put a sex joke in the abstract.
Permalink to Comment13. displayer on September 7, 2012 4:13 AM writes...
er, maybe this is too obvious, but chemical structures.
Permalink to Commentall too often, I see scientists trying to attract attention to their work just by drawing a black and white stick structure. who is interested in that? please if you're not going to spend time to properly produce the graphical abstract your work deserves, it is not hard to just add some interest through a photo of some lab equipment, your product in a vial, or clip art, a photo of a mountain, greek god. At the very least the use of a second or third colour for the rings if you have any in the structure, or even just draw the bonds in pink and green. come on!!
14. John Wayne on September 7, 2012 8:28 AM writes...
@13
Most things we publish are for consumption by an audience that shares our technical expertise. Chemical structures are an effective tool to communicate because there is a standard presentation that is (usually) followed. Adding 'interest,' such as color, is a waste of time and actually detracts from the material being presented; the people who do it anyway are noted by their peers.
Press releases, advertisements, etc. are very different (being intended for a wider audience), and are treated appropriately.
Permalink to Comment15. emjeff on September 7, 2012 9:23 AM writes...
The use of graphical abstracts themselves have become a cliche...
Permalink to Comment16. homer on September 7, 2012 6:38 PM writes...
This one...
Permalink to Commenthttp://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ic0352250
17. sepisp on September 10, 2012 6:04 AM writes...
If you go and check the front page of Green Chemistry, where a graphical abstract is mandatory, the most common mistake is a wrong choice of size. The resolution available is really low: you have only 378 pixels horizontally for use. But, many select graphs that won't show well until at about twice that size. For example: http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2012/gc/c2gc36092f
The second thing that irks me is the use of 3D ball-and stick or space filling model of a molecule for no apparent benefit. This is a good example of how it doesn't help: http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2012/gc/c2gc36019e A regular skeletal formula is much more clear.
Or, even worse, some authors like to abstractify the results to hell.
Permalink to Comment18. rguinn on September 11, 2012 4:54 PM writes...
I've always liked the click chemistry "Click!" explosion illustration.
Permalink to Comment19. Colonel Boris on September 16, 2012 3:54 PM writes...
Any MOF paper with a shiny, golden ball that completely ignores any actual pore volume available.
Permalink to CommentWe used to call them "Omar's Golden Balls" in my old lab.