Is Table 1 helpful, or too simplistic?

[teixeirak]

@beckybanbury , @hmullerlandau , @bpbond , @ValentineHerr , @nkunert ,

As I'm going through responses to R1, I'm wondering if Table 1 ends up hurting the paper by coming across as too simplistic. To someone who starts by scanning the display items quickly (most of us, I think), it would be easy to get the impression that we're trying to present these as novel questions/hypotheses. That might explain R1's negative reaction, which makes sense when I look at it that way (noting that R1 clearly didn't give a careful review after getting a negative first impression).

At a minimum, I think we should find some way to present the table a differently so that it's clear from a first pass that this is intended as a review/synthesis, as opposed to us considering the questions novel. Offhand, I'm not sure how to best do that. Perhaps change questions to subheadings, drop the "hypothesis" terminology, and give a label such as "review of global patterns in C cycling, as synthesized here."?

[bpbond]

Hi @teixeirak – I think that's a reasonable concern (that Table 1 may have misled slightly). Maybe change "research questions" to "review questions", and "hypotheses" to "expectations"?

[bpbond]

Including the table here for easy reference.

[hmullerlandau]

I really like the table as a nice summary of what is done, but see the concern. Ben's proposed rewording would help, I think. Another option would be to add some additional information to the table to clarify the scope of our review. For example, for each C flux column, we could list the number of sites in the analyses (assuming it is the same for all the questions..?).

Another idea would be to put together a supplementary table that gives information on previous studies that have addressed these questions, using the same format, and perhaps referencing studies by number and giving the number of sites in parentheses, or something like that. This would clearly show how many more sites and more aspects this manuscript looks at relative to previous ones.

Helene

On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 3:13 PM Ben Bond-Lamberty notifications@github.com wrote:

Including the table here for easy reference. [image: Screen Shot 2020-12-01 at 3 12 13 PM] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/1956468/100791797-b6119680-33e7-11eb-9155-1b2c5a0ddcce.png

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/forc-db/Global_Productivity/issues/124#issuecomment-736791523, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADVG5N3VX4MLGWIGWJCZTXLSSVE67ANCNFSM4UJOIRGQ .

-- Helene Muller-Landau hmullerlandau@gmail.com +507 6471-5214 (cell)

[teixeirak]

Thanks for the feedback! I've made some changes, including Ben's suggested wording changes, and starting to insert footnote for references with evidence supporting each hypothesis (which we previously had and dropped). I also condensed the hypotheses and replaced yes/no with checkmarks/ X's. I think it helps quite a bit:

The references still need work, but I think this solves the problem.

[beckybanbury]

@teixeirak this looks great! I think it's better with the rewording, and it is worth putting the references in to clarify - I'll have another look and make sure we've comprehensively referenced it. I think I had to manually add the references, when I had them added before, so I'll add them again that way if you'd like.

[teixeirak]

Thanks, @beckybanbury. Yeah, the references are a bit of a pain. I think we need to first come up with the full list, then put in some logical order (by order of appearance or alphabetical), and then redo the numbering. If there are any citations that are in the table but not cited elsewhere, they need to go in the "nocite" section below the table in the .Rmd file (just added-- citations there appear in the references section without an in-text citation).

[bpbond]

Looks great! Note that while the caption has changed, the table itself still says "hypothesized relationships" instead of "expected relationships".

[teixeirak]

Note that while the caption has changed, the table itself still says "hypothesized relationships" instead of "expected relationships".

I considered changing, but thought "hypothesized" was better than "expected" given that we reject some of these.

[teixeirak]

@beckybanbury , a few to review for potential addition:

• [x] fernandez-martinez_spatial_2014
• [ ] yu_high_2014
• [x] recently added references on growing season length

and a couple other things to consider:

• [ ] the MAT x MAP prediction needs to be reworded
• [ ] consider adding MAT + MAP prediction
• [ ] under Q5, ref 8 argues that there is no relationship, so current setup is misleading. Not sure how to convey that simply...

[hmullerlandau]

Looks good!

On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 8:28 AM Kristina Anderson-Teixeira < notifications@github.com> wrote:

@beckybanbury https://github.com/beckybanbury , a few to review for potential addition:

• fernandez-martinez_spatial_2014
• yu_high_2014
• recently added references on growing season length

and a couple other things to consider:

• the MAT x MAP prediction needs to be reworded
• consider adding MAT + MAP prediction
• under Q5, ref 8 argues that there is no relationship, so current setup is misleading. Not sure how to convey that simply...

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/forc-db/Global_Productivity/issues/124#issuecomment-737229906, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADVG5N2JWBEHOFBOTQROIPTSSY6HVANCNFSM4UJOIRGQ .

-- Helene Muller-Landau hmullerlandau@gmail.com +507 6471-5214 (cell)

[beckybanbury]

@teixeirak I've added a quite a few references to the table, which I think has improved things. There's still a few gaps on certain hypotheses, so if you know any references for those it would be good to add - I think I've checked everything we've referenced in the paper and didn't find much (mostly because the climate variables are quite specific).

[teixeirak]

Thanks, @beckybanbury ! I think we can close this.