I was today looking over a (very likely unnecessary) ‘Figure’, in which remains a couple of absent panels, because this one has been repeatedly shoved back down the priority list: sometimes forgotten, sometimes ignored, sometimes neglected. But something keeps telling me that it is useful information. I could, perhaps, go with ‘data not shown’, as there really is nothing particularly novel about it. However, it just, I don’t know, looks better than citing all those references that have each shown or described a part. (There may be one that’s shown the whole lot, but I haven’t found it.)
(Ever wonder about that ‘data not shown’ thing? I mean, I know there are space limitations; and I know sometimes you have to pay to get published, so the fewer the figures, the cheaper the cost; and some things just don’t need to be shown. But sometimes I do think, ‘Why not?’)
So, these missing panels have not been so easy to arrive at (hence, why they’re missing). However, as I’m now at the stage where an advanced draft is on my boss’s desk (somewhere), I want to get this pesky figure sorted. I won’t bore you with the details; it’s nothing remarkable (err, data not shown?). But I need to compare the quality of a potentially usable new-ish image with the original versions of the ones that have already been pasted in. The latest plan of this refers to the number and page of the relevant lab book, wherein are recorded the image numbers, on the day I captured them. I thumbed through, and when I landed on the relevant notes, I saw… the date. June 2008.
A year ago. One year. A whole… feckin’… year!
What have I been doing?
… and apparently attracting idiot spammers! What the beejaysus!
“Data not shown” — redundant — online supplementary information.
(Hope that isn’t classed as an idiotic spammer suggestion ;-) ).
(Not at all; that was between Stephen’s and my comments above, but now thankfully removed [by you?]). If it happens again, should we consider charging them for advertising space?)
Not me who removed it, Lee, probably one of the eagle-eyed Nature Network admins. Just so long as online supplementary information containing additional data (thus, not “not shown”) does not go the same way….
Yeah, I’ve been there. Would second the option of submitting as supplemental data. The more data somewhere accessible, the better.