|
Hey folks, Did you know that March is Women’s History Month? Each year The Economist updates what they call the “Glass Ceiling Index”. This is a measure of “the role and influence of women in the workforce”. It’s an aggregate of ten factors including the gender gap in wages, work force participation, and higher education. Sadly, the article is behind a paywall. They also haven’t made their data publicly available. Regardless, you can get a static copy of the article through archiv.is. Here’s the graphic that appears to most popular when you google for the index. What stands out to you about this figure? To me, it’s interesting that the countries at the top tend to stay at the top and those in the bottom tend to stay at the bottom. The countries in the middle are a bit of a jumbled mess. Poland has taken a nose dive since 2016 while Britain has climbed. The U.S. has been pretty steady between 18th and 20th place. One critique is that this shows the relative trends and not the absolute. All the countries could be getting better on each factor, but we wouldn’t see it here. We’d only see whether a country is improving at the same, better, or worse rate than other countries. Graphically, what stands out to you? What would interest you most to see done in R? Here are my first thoughts… At first glance, this is a line plot with 30 lines. Line plots can be generated using Alternatively, we could try using A second interesting component to the figure is that the lines/polygons are colored according to the ranking from 2024. Normally, we could pull this off with A third element that catches my eye is the order of the lines. They appear to have been laid down on the “plotting canvas” in ranked order. We’ll need to make sure this happens with our recreation. This is the type of thing I’d do with A fourth element that stands out to me is that the countries are ordered on the left side for 2016 and the right side for 2024. The left side is easy enough to do with setting the y-axis text in Finally, the x-axis has the four digit year for 2016 and the last two digits of each year for the even years that follow. That’s easy enough to do with Oof. This is going to be challenging! But, I’m excited to learn more about
|
Hey folks, It has been great to see the high level of engagement with my weekly critique videos on YouTube. I have really enjoyed making them and have learned a lot about current practices in data visualization. The one problem with these videos is that they’re a bit like an autopsy. We can figure out what went well or what didn’t work in a published figure. But we can’t do much to improve the published figure. What if we could do critiques before submitting our papers, preparing a...
Hey folks, This week I want to share with you a figure that resembles many a type of figure that I see in a lot of genomics papers. I’d consider it a data visualization meme - kind of like how you’re “required” to have a stacked bar plot if you’re doing microbiome research or a dynamite plot if you’re publishing in Nature :) This figure was included in the paper, “Impact of intensive control on malaria population genomics under elimination settings in Southeast Asia” that was published...
Hey folks! I hope you enjoyed last week’s series on the radial volcano plot (newsletter, critique video, livestream). I think it did a good job of illustrating the various reasons I think it’s valuable to recreate figures, even if we don’t like how they display the data. Something I didn’t really emphasize in last week’s newsletter was that by recreating a figure, we can make sure that the data are legit. I’m surprised by the number of signals I’ve been finding where authors using tools like...