DOI: 10.5061/dryad.jq2bvq8f3
title: Design of tables for the presentation and communication of data in ecological and evolutionary biology

description: Tables and charts have long been seen as effective ways to convey data.
 Much attention has been focused on improving charts, following ideas of
 human perception and brain function. Tables can also be viewed as
 two-dimensional representations of data, yet it is only fairly recently
 that we have begun to apply principles of design that aid the
 communication of information between the author and reader. In this study,
 we collated guidelines for the design of data and statistical tables.
 These guidelines fall under three principles: aiding comparisons, reducing
 visual clutter, and increasing readability. We surveyed tables published
 in recent issues of 43 journals in the fields of ecology and evolutionary
 biology for their adherence to these three principles, as well as author
 guidelines on journal publisher websites. We found that most of the over
 1,000 tables we sampled had no heavy grid lines and little visual clutter.
 They were also easy to read, with clear headers and horizontal
 orientation. However, most tables did not aid the vertical comparison of
 numeric data. We suggest that authors could improve their tables by the
 right-flush alignment of numeric columns typeset with a tabular font,
 clearly identify statistical significance, and use clear titles and
 captions. Journal publishers could easily implement these formatting
 guidelines when typesetting manuscripts.
description: Once we had established the above
 principles of table design, we assessed their use in issues of 43 widely
 read ecology and evolution journals (SI 2). Between January and July 2022,
 we reviewed the tables in the most recent issue published by these
 journals. For journals without issues (such as <em>Annual Review of
 Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics</em>, or <em>Biological
 Conservation</em>), we examined the tables in issues published in a
 single month or in the entire most recent volume if few papers were
 published in that journal on a monthly basis. We reviewed only articles in
 a traditionally typeset format and published as a PDF or in print. We did
 not examine the tables in online versions of articles. Having identified all tables for review, we
 assessed whether these tables followed the above-described best practice
 principles for table design and, if not, we noted the way in which these
 tables failed to meet the outlined guidelines. We initially both reviewed
 the same 10 tables to ensure that we agreed in our assessment of whether
 these tables followed each of the principles. Having ensured agreement on
 how to classify tables, we proceeded to review all subsequent journals
 individually, while resolving any uncertainties collaboratively. These
 preliminary table evaluations also showed that assessing whether tables
 used long format or a tabular font was hard to evaluate objectively
 without knowing the data or the font used. Therefore, we did not
 systematically review the extent to which these two guidelines were
 adhered to.
description: # Design of tables for the presentation and communication of data in
 ecological and evolutionary biology --- Once we had established the above
 principles of table design, we assessed their use in issues of 43 widely
 read ecology and evolution journals (SI 2). Between January and July 2022,
 we reviewed the tables in the most recent issue published by these
 journals. For journals without issues (such as Annual Review of Ecology,
 Evolution, and Systematics, or Biological Conservation), we examined the
 tables in issues published in a single month or in the entire most recent
 volume if few papers were published in that journal on a monthly basis. We
 reviewed only articles in a traditionally typeset format and published as
 a PDF or in print. We did not examine the tables in online versions of
 articles. Having identified all tables for review, we assessed whether
 these tables followed the above-described best practice principles for
 table design and, if not, we noted the way in which these tables failed to
 meet the outlined guidelines. We initially both reviewed the same 10
 tables to ensure that we agreed in our assessment of whether these tables
 followed each of the principles. Having ensured agreement on how to
 classify tables, we proceeded to review all subsequent journals
 individually, while resolving any uncertainties collaboratively. These
 preliminary table evaluations also showed that assessing whether tables
 used long format or a tabular font was hard to evaluate objectively
 without knowing the data or the font used. Therefore, we did not
 systematically review the extent to which these two guidelines were
 adhered to. ## Description of the data and file structure In order to
 examine whether adherence to best-practice guidelines varies depending on
 the kind of information displayed in the table, we delineated three
 different types of tables. Statistical tables could range from correlation
 matrices to showing summary results of various statistical tests (e.g.,
 mean, 25th and 75th percentiles, t/F/P values, degrees of freedom, etc.)
 to providing different kinds of information on models (e.g., probability
 at which a model is chosen for the given data, model predictions, model
 fitting times, model convergence rates, etc.). Text tables contained
 little or no numerical data. They often served to provide descriptions of
 measures/factors/analytical approaches used, or examples to demonstrate
 groupings/category labels, or summaries of different approaches/criticisms
 from the literature. Data tables either contained data in its unaggregated
 (raw) format or in a summarized form (e.g., summarizing the frequency of
 occurrences or categories of interest). After reviewing issues in each of
 the 43 journals, we grouped descriptions of the ways in which tables
 failed to follow best-practice guidelines and tabulated how often the
 above principles were met. We also examined the formatting guidelines for
 tables provided by each journal. All data cleaning and analyses were
 carried out in the statistical software environment R 4.2.2 (R Development
 Core Team 2022). The excel file contains three sheets. **Detailed
 results** This sheet contains the raw data collected on each table.
 Colunms provide identification information on each table, and then how
 that table met (or not) each guideline. **Big picture results** This sheet
 contains the cleaned and grouped data on each table. Colunms provide
 identification information on each table, and then how that table met (or
 not) each guideline. **Sheet 3** This sheet contains summary data on the
 tables in each journal. ## Sharing/Access information Links to other
 publicly accessible locations of the data: NA Data was derived from the
 following sources: NA ## Code/Software NA