Elena Romero Vergara

This illustration has been chosen because tables usually show fact clear and since appears in almost all
scientific papers.

The way the table is displayed makes it difficult to read and reduces the quality of the illustration. It is
not clear what the table shows, some of the therms should be explained. The caption should be above the
table. Even if you need to read the paper to understand the illustration, it should provides a clear
overview. The overall quality of the illustration is therefore poor and leads to not knowing if the data is
correct.

Vital information that should be include are references.

The caption is not complete. It should include a short explanation of the terms TOC, P and PET and
summarize better what it is showns.

This illustration is used to summarize and compare data that is explained in the paper and shows
significant data. This context is therefore motivated.

The illustration is found in the results section, called “Summary of papers with main results”.

Possible improvements should focus on clarity and readability. It would be better if the table was
displayed in horizontal and had make better use of the space.

Table 3: Significant variables (with coefficients listed) for the multiple linear regression
of monthly TOC concentrations (dependent variable) versus monthly climatic
parameters, land cover and catchment area (independent variables). The color ranking
1-14 is a significant ranking where 1 (red) is the most significant predicting variable.
Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-1845
 Elena Romero Vergara
This illustration was chosen because the placement of the various elements on the
map and the inset caught my attention.

Elevation data and the combination of gray scale and blue colours give a high
quality look. The location labels are to small and difficult to read. This added to
the larger size of the inset, which attracts all the attention, reduces the quality of
the illustration. The placement of the legend, references and title does not seem
well thought out and further lower the quality.

A vital information that has not been included in the illustration is a north arrow.

The caption is very short but complete. Relevant information is already in the
illustration itself, including references.

The context of the illustration is well motivated because the author writes about
the Tarfala Research Station which is shown in the map.

The illustration is found in the “Glacier front surveys” section that I think
represent the background/material.

Possible improvements should focus on the balance between the various elements
in order to highlight the map. The inset should be smaller, the title should be
situated above but in the middle, the legend and sources situated in the right lower
corner and the scale bar situated in the left lower corner.

Figure 3.1.The location of the Tarfala Research Station and the glaciers in its
monitoring programme.
Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-155233
 Elena Romero Vergara
I chose this illustration because graphs represent information direct and provides
a quick overview, but can be difficult to interpret sometimes.

The graphs have good quality regarding that the data is shown clearly with a
simple design. The chosen colours for the lines are suitable. The y axis are
labeled correctly and with units. The tick marks are distributed in a meaningful
way. Less tick marks could not display, in this case, the increases and decreases
properly. The 0 point is placed in the lower left corner (not in the graph a)
because of the negative numbers).

I think that all vital information has been included in the illustration.

The caption is almost complete and makes the figure interpretable. The labels and
dashed/ dotted lines are explained and even that the graph c) shows changes in
daily discharge over the year in the different periods is explained. References are
missing.

The illustration is part of the “Results” section and therefore well motivated,
because graphs are a very good way to show trends and making comparisons over
time when the data sets are large.

Possible improvement could be mention of the trend line in the graphs d) and e)
in the caption. The x axis are not labeled, although it is obvious what they show,
should be labeled.
Figure 7. Long term patterns in mean annual (a) temperature (T), (b) precipitation (P),
evapotranspiration (ET) and runoff (R), (d) minimum (Qmin) and (e) maximum (Qmax) daily
discharge within a year (Mostovoy station, see Figure 1) for the period 1938-2009 in the Selenga
River basin. Dashed or dotted lines indicate annual values and solid lines indicate 10-year running
average. Graph (c) presents changes in daily discharge (Q) patterns over the year for the periods
1938- 1961, 1962-1985 and 1986-2009 (Mostovoy station) (modified from Figure 2 and Figure 3 in
Paper I: Törnqvist et al., 2014). Retrieved from
http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-145442