Please also fix other issues that may be apparent in checks with a current R-devel.
Now, how can this be done? Here’s my workflow on Mac OS (might be slightly different on Win or Linux):
(read the messages of the installer which version you are supposed to use), otherwise the installer will overwrite your existing version
Furthermore, check whether your package follows the CRAN Repository Policies.
PS: Finally, I managed to get rid of the annoying R CMD check warnings like “no visible binding for global variable ‘x'”. These occured due to the ggplot2 syntax. Here‘s a solution.
Update Oct-23: Added a new parameter
to the function. Now multiple groups can be plotted in a single plot (see example in my comment)
As a follow-up on my R implementation of Solomon’s watercolor plots, I made some improvements to the function. I fine-tuned the graphical parameters (the median smoother line now diminishes faster with increasing CIs, and the shaded watercolors look more pretty). Furthermore, the function is faster and has more features:
At the end of this post is the source code for the R function.
Here are some variants of the watercolor plots – at the end, you can vote for your favorite (or write something into the comments). I am still fine-tuning the default parameters, and I am interested in your opinions what would be the best default.
Plot 1: The current default
Plot 2: Using an M-estimator for bootstrap smoothers. Usually you get wider confidence intervalls.
Plot 3:Increasing the span of the smoothers
Plot 4: Decreasing the span of the smoothers
Plot 5: Changing the color scheme, using a predefined ColorBrewer palette. You can see all available palettes by using this command: library(RColorBrewer); display.brewer.all()
Plot 6: Using a custom-made palette
Plot 7: Using a custom-made palette; with the parameter bias you can shift the color ramp to the “higher” colors:
Plot 8: A black and white version of the plot
Plot 9: The anti-Tufte-plot: Using as much ink as possible by reversing black and white (a.k.a. “the Milky-Way Plot“)
Plot 10: The Northern Light Plot/ fMRI plot. This plotting technique already has been used by a suspicious company (called IRET – never heard of that). I hurried to publish the R code under a FreeBSD license before they can patent it! Feel free to use, share, or change the code for whatever purpose you need. Isn’t that beautiful?
Plot 11: The 1-2-3-SD plot. You can use your own color schemes as well, e.g.: vwReg(y~x, df, bw=TRUE, quantize=”SD”)
Any comments or ideas? Or just a vote? If you produce some nice plots with your data, you can send it to me, and I will post a gallery of the most impressive “data art”!
Dear valued customer,
it is a well-known scientific truth that research results which are accompanied by a fancy, colorful fMRI scan, are perceived as more believable and more persuasive than simple bar graphs or text results (McCabe & Castel, 2007; Weisberg, Keil, Goodstein, Rawson, & Gray, 2008). Readers even agree more with fictitious and unsubstantiated claims, as long as you provide a colorful brain image, and it works even when the subject is a dead salmon.
What are the consequence of these troubling findings? The answer is clear. Everybody should be equipped with these powerful tools of research communication! We at IRET made it to our mission to provide the latest, cutting-edge tools for your research analysis. In this case we adopted a new technology called “visually weighted regression” or “watercolor plots” (see here, here, or here), and simply applied a new color scheme.
But now, let’s get some hands on it!
Imagine you invested a lot of effort in collecting the data of 41 participants. Now you find following pattern in 2 of your 87 variables:
You could show that plain scatterplot. But should you do it? Nay. Of course everybody would spot the outliers on the top right. But which is much more important: it is b-o-r-i-n-g!
What is the alternative? Reporting the correlation as text? “We found a correlation of r = .38 (p = .014)”. Yawn.
Or maybe: “We chose to use a correlation technique that is robust against outliers and violations of normality, the Spearman rank coefficient. It turned out that the correlation broke down and was not significant any more (r = .06, p = .708).”.
Don’t be silly! With that style of scientific reporting, there would be nothing to write home about. But you can be sure: we have the right tools for you. Finally, the power of pictures is not limited to brain research – now you can turn any data into a magical fMRI plot like that:
Isn’t that beautiful? We recommend to accompany the figure with an elaborated description: “For local fitting, we used spline smoothers from 10`000 bootstrap replications. For a robust estimation of vertical confidence densities, a re-descending M-estimator with Tukey’s biweight function was employed. As one can clearly see in the plot, there is significant confidence in the prediction of the x=0, y=0 region, as well as a minor hot spot in the x=15, y=60 region (also known as the supra-dextral data region).”
With the Magical Data Enhancer Tool (MDET) you can …
Q: But – isn’t that approach unethical?
A: No, it’s not at all. In contrast, we at IRES think that it is unethical that only some researchers are allowed to exploit the cognitive biases of their readers. We design our products with a great respect for humanity and we believe that every researcher who can afford our products should have the same powerful tools at hand.
Q: How much does you product cost?
A: The standard version of the Magical Data Enhancer ships for 12’998 $. We are aware that this is a significant investment. But, come on: You deserve it! Furthermore, we will soon publish a free trial version, including the full R code on this blog. So stay tuned!
Lexis “Lex” Brycenet (CEO & CTO Research Communication)
International Research Enhancement Technology (IRET)
Send this to a friend