Reviewer Form - Figures and Tables

Download Review Criteria for Figures & Tables (.docx)

Please indicate the quality of the submission and provide comments in each major section.
If your answer is “no,” please explain why in the appropriate comment section.

Figure characteristics

Quality:  Is the figure visually clear? Are any data points, lines, words, and pictures illegible? Are distinctions that are central to the interpretation (such as a difference between lines) clearly made?

[    ] Yes.

[    ]  It’s somewhat unclear.

 [    ] It’s difficult to read.

Concept: Does the concept depicted by the figure fit within the discipline of ecology, evolution or botany?

[    ] Yes.

[    ] Partially.

[    ] It is more closely related to another discipline.

Comments on figure:

Ecological / Botanical / Evolutionary context (metadata)

Title: Is the title accurate? It is descriptive enough to be helpful when someone searches for resources?

[    ] Yes.

[    ] It needs better description or minor corrections.

[    ] It does not reflect the submission.

Legend: Does the figure legend provide the information needed to interpret the figure?Are features such as variables and axes clearly labeled on the figure itself or explained in the legend?

[    ] Yes.

[    ] It is somewhat unclear or lacks some information.

[    ]  It lacks critical information or is very unclear.

Biological Significance: Is the significance of the figure, as related to the disciple of ecology, evolution or botany, clearly and accurately explained? Does the description provide any information needed understand the ecological, botanical or evolutionary context? Does it include common and scientific names of key species?

[    ] Yes.

[    ] It needs better description or minor corrections.

[    ] Biological significance is inaccurate or unclear. Common or scientific names are not included.

Accessible language: Are the title and description worded so that a non-specialist who is teaching a discipline focused course can understand them? Are any specialized terms defined?

[    ] Yes.

[    ] There are one or two undefined specialized terms.

[    ] There is significant use of jargon.

Core Concepts: Are the selected core concepts appropriate for the resource? Are these the categories where you would expect to find the resource if you were browsing?

[    ] Yes.

[    ] One concept should be changed.

[    ] These categories are not where I would expect to find this resource.

Key taxa: Are the applicable common and scientific names of all key taxa included in sufficient detail? Are they accurate, to your knowledge?

[    ] Yes.

[    ] Requires more detail or minor taxonomic corrections.

[    ] Names are not included, are inaccurate, or are vague.

Comments on title, description, accessibility, core concepts, and key taxa:

Pedagogical context

Audience level: Are the figure and the concepts and/or data it depicts appropriate for the intended education level(s)?

[    ] Yes.

[    ] Somewhat. It would be useful for some students at this level(s).

[    ] It’s inappropriate for students at this education level(s).

Ways to use this learning resource: Does the author clearly explain how the figure can be used effectively in the classroom? Is it clear what concepts and/or skills students should learn when the figure is used in a lesson? Note: this is optional information.

[    ] Yes.

[    ] It needs more detail or some edits for clarity.

[    ] Classroom use is inadequately described or very unclear.

Comments on audience level and pedagogical description:

Copyright information

Audience level: Are the figure and the concepts and/or data it depicts appropriate for the intended education level(s)?

[    ] Yes.

[    ] Somewhat. It would be useful for some students at this level(s).

[    ] It’s inappropriate for students at this education level(s).