Plot-Logic-Pipeline
Systematically deconstruct scientific papers by following the figure-discussion logical backbone.
When to Use
- Analyzing a research paper's argument structure
- Reviewing manuscripts before submission
- Understanding how figures support claims in technical papers
- Mapping evidence sources (literature vs. new measurements)
- Identifying logical gaps or unsupported claims
Core Principle
Figures are the bare bones of a paper's logic flow. Each figure corresponds to a discussion that either:
- Sets up the next key finding (preparation)
- States the key finding (conclusion)
Complete understanding requires analyzing every figure-discussion pair and tracking evidence sources.
Analysis Framework
Step 1: Figure Inventory
Create a complete inventory of all figures in the paper:
Figure 1: [Brief description]
Figure 2: [Brief description]
...
Figure N: [Brief description]
Step 2: Figure-Discussion Mapping
For each figure, identify its corresponding discussion section and analyze:
Figure X: [Description]
├── Location: [Section/page where discussed]
├── Discussion Type: [Setup / Statement]
├── Main Claim: [Key finding or point]
└── Evidence Source:
├── Previous Study: [Citation(s) if supported by literature]
├── This Paper: [Analysis method if new measurement/calculation]
└── Support Level: [Strong / Partial / Contradictory / Missing]
Step 3: Logic Flow Reconstruction
Map how figures build upon each other:
Paper Logic Flow:
Figure 1 → Figure 2 → Figure 3 → ... → Conclusion
↓ ↓ ↓
[Setup] [Key Finding 1] [Key Finding 2]
Step 4: Evidence Assessment
Evaluate the strength of the paper's argument:
- Are all major claims supported by figures?
- Are evidence sources properly attributed?
- Are there logical gaps between figures?
- Do setup discussions adequately prepare for key findings?
Evidence Classification
Previous Study Support
- Direct citation: Specific reference supporting the claim
- Literature consensus: Multiple citations building consensus
- Comparative reference: Contrasting with previous work
This Paper's Contributions
- New experimental data: Novel measurements with method specified
- Novel calculations: Computational work or modeling
- Reanalysis: New interpretation of existing data
Combined Evidence
- Validation: New data confirms previous studies
- Extension: New data builds upon previous work
- Contradiction: New data challenges previous findings
Analysis Templates
See TEMPLATES.md for detailed templates including:
- Basic figure-discussion analysis
- Complete paper analysis workflow
- Materials science specific templates
- Quality assurance checklist
Quality Checks
Before concluding analysis:
- ✅ All figures mapped to discussions
- ✅ Evidence sources identified for major claims
- ✅ Logic flow clearly traced from introduction to conclusion
- ✅ Setup vs. statement discussions distinguished
- ✅ Contradictions or gaps noted and flagged
Common Pitfalls
- Skipping "obvious" figures: Even simple schematics contribute to logic flow
- Missing evidence attribution: Always identify if claims come from citations or new work
- Ignoring setup discussions: These are crucial for understanding logical progression
- Overlooking figure details: Axis labels, error bars, and annotations often contain key information
- Conflating correlation with causation: Note when figures show correlation vs. when claims assert causation
Rules
- Every figure gets analyzed — no skipping, even if it seems straightforward
- Always classify evidence — distinguish previous work from new contributions
- Trace the logic chain — show how each figure builds on the previous one
- Flag gaps honestly — note missing evidence or weak logical connections
- Separate observation from interpretation — what the figure shows vs. what the authors claim
