Another example from the lab. My labmate is running a microfluidic system to make nanoparticles. She’s trying to make them monodispersed (all the same size). What she’ll publish is very precise measurements of the size distribution of the nanoparticles, which she’ll obtain from the MasterSizer.
However, it’s a 30 minute round trip walk to use it. And every MasterSizer reading is just a point in time. What she’ll use to make the decision about whether or not to measure the nanoparticles is purely qualitative. She’s got a microscope hooked up to a computer screen that’s displaying the nanoparticles flowing through as they’re created. She can see clearly that they’re monodispersed, and can tell by sight what the effect is of changing the speed of the oil and aqueous phases, the angle of the syringes, or the ratio of the flow rates. Not to mention the effect of bumps, dust particles, and so on. It’s a continuous, dynamic, high-data way to observe—a firehose of information.
The figure that will ultimately be published will capture only a small piece of that, and it will be a far less informative piece of information than simply standing there and watching the nanoparticles stream by—or an informal conversation with her. But that MasterSizer measurement is what may convince other researchers that she’s had success, or that her techniques are worth trying. They’ll have to set up their own firehose to really learn about those monodispersed nanoparticles. The paper is, in a way, just advertising, and maybe a third of the way to an instruction manual.
If she can, it might be nice for her to put a few minutes of microscope footage attached to the paper as a supplementary. Maybe just “bad conditions” (stuff flowing by all different sizes), followed by “good conditions”: stuff all the same. Lots of journals offer the possibility of videos as supplementary information. Its the sort of thing that (I think) journal editors like (maybe it boosts engagement by the metrics they use for their websites?), and it sounds like it will benefit the paper.
Another example from the lab. My labmate is running a microfluidic system to make nanoparticles. She’s trying to make them monodispersed (all the same size). What she’ll publish is very precise measurements of the size distribution of the nanoparticles, which she’ll obtain from the MasterSizer.
However, it’s a 30 minute round trip walk to use it. And every MasterSizer reading is just a point in time. What she’ll use to make the decision about whether or not to measure the nanoparticles is purely qualitative. She’s got a microscope hooked up to a computer screen that’s displaying the nanoparticles flowing through as they’re created. She can see clearly that they’re monodispersed, and can tell by sight what the effect is of changing the speed of the oil and aqueous phases, the angle of the syringes, or the ratio of the flow rates. Not to mention the effect of bumps, dust particles, and so on. It’s a continuous, dynamic, high-data way to observe—a firehose of information.
The figure that will ultimately be published will capture only a small piece of that, and it will be a far less informative piece of information than simply standing there and watching the nanoparticles stream by—or an informal conversation with her. But that MasterSizer measurement is what may convince other researchers that she’s had success, or that her techniques are worth trying. They’ll have to set up their own firehose to really learn about those monodispersed nanoparticles. The paper is, in a way, just advertising, and maybe a third of the way to an instruction manual.
If she can, it might be nice for her to put a few minutes of microscope footage attached to the paper as a supplementary. Maybe just “bad conditions” (stuff flowing by all different sizes), followed by “good conditions”: stuff all the same. Lots of journals offer the possibility of videos as supplementary information. Its the sort of thing that (I think) journal editors like (maybe it boosts engagement by the metrics they use for their websites?), and it sounds like it will benefit the paper.