Process and Pitfalls in Writing Information Visualization Research Papers - Information Visualization: Human-Centered Issues and Perspectives - page 150

Visual Encoding , Hammer In Search Of Nail ,and 2D Good, 3D Better focus
on issues that are more central for an infovis audience, but may well be of
benefit to scivis as well. All of the strategy pitfalls pertain to any research paper.
The result pitfalls hold for all visualization papers, and Straw Man Comparison
is general enough for all research papers. The tactical and final stage pitfalls
are very general, with two exceptions. Story-Free Captions is specific to both
visualization and computer graphics. My Picture Speaks For Itself is again most
tuned for infovis, but certainly may pique the interest of the scivis community.
Although I have framed my discussion in terms of the InfoVis author guide
paper categories, my comments also apply to infovis papers in other venues. I
argue that even if a call for papers does not explicitly state paper categories,
keeping this paper taxonomy in mind will help you write a stronger paper.
7Conluon
I have advocated an approach to conducting infovis research that begins with an
explicit consideration of paper types. I have exhorted authors to avoid pitfalls
at several stages of research process, including visual encoding during design,
a checkpoint before starting to write, and after a full paper draft exists. My
description and categorization of these pitfalls reflects my own experiences as
author, reviewer, and papers chair. I offer it in hopes of steering and stimulating
discussion in our field.
Acknowledgments. This paper has grown in part from a series of talks. The
impetus to begin articulating my thoughts was the Publishing Your Visualiza-
tion Research panel at the IEEE Visualization 2006 Doctoral Colloquium. I
benefited from discussion with many participants at the 2007 Dagstuhl Seminar
on Information Visualization and the 2007 Visual Interactive Effective Worlds
workshop at the Lorentz Center, after speaking on the same topic. I also appre-
ciate a discussion with Pat Hanrahan and Lyn Bartram on design studies. John
Stasko's thoughts considerably strengthened my discussion of model papers. I
thank Aaron Barsky, Hamish Carr, Jeff Heer, Stephen Ingram, Ciaran Llachlan
Leavitt, Peter McLachlan, James Slack, and Matt Ward for feedback on paper
drafts. I particularly thank Heidi Lam, Torsten Moller, John Stasko, and Melanie
Tory for extensive discussions beyond the call of duty.
References
1. Amar, R., Eagan, J., Stasko, J.: Low-level components of analytic activity in in-
formation visualization. In: Proc. IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization
(InfoVis), pp. 111-117 (2005)
2. Becker, R.A., Cleveland, W.S., Shyu, M.J.: The visual design and control of trellis
display. Journal of Computational and Statistical Graphics 5, 123-155 (1996)
3. Card, S., Mackinlay, J.: The structure of the information visualization design
space. In: Proc. IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization (InfoVis), pp.
92-99 (1997)