Tables & Figures for a Review (amann-tables-figures)

When to trigger

The synthesis is done and the reader needs to see the field at a glance
The organizing framework would land far better as a diagram than as prose
A fragmented literature would be clearer as a synthesis table than as paragraphs
You are tempted to paste a regression table — but this is a review, not a primary paper

The exhibit types an Annals review actually uses

Annals exhibits summarize and reorganize across the literature; they never present the author's own estimation. The workhorses:

| Exhibit | Purpose | Design notes | |---------|---------|--------------| | Framework figure | render the organizing spine — typology grid, process model, multi-level architecture | this is usually the review's signature exhibit; it should be restate-able from memory and carry the "new way of seeing the field" | | Who-studied-what synthesis table | one row per study (or per stream): construct, theory base, method/context, finding, your appraisal | rows ordered by the framework's cells, not chronology; columns let the reader compare comparable work | | Search / coverage exhibit | a PRISMA-style flow, a search-terms table, or a publications-over-time chart | documents the systematic process from amann-literature-synthesis and pre-empts "why did you omit X?" | | Agenda / gap matrix | the framework's empty cells laid out as the future-research agenda | turns the generativity of the framework into a concrete, visible roadmap |

Building credible synthesis exhibits

The framework figure must do conceptual work. It should be the contribution rendered visually — readers should be able to reconstruct the review's argument from it. A decorative diagram that merely lists topics fails.
Compare like with like. In a synthesis table, group studies that theorize the same construct; never put incommensurable constructs in one column (the exhibit version of the pooling error from amann-literature-synthesis).
Carry an appraisal column. A finding column without a credibility/method note invites "but how good is that study?" — answer it in the table (links to amann-evidence-standards).
Self-contained captions. An Annals exhibit is read on its own; the caption states what it shows, the unit, how to read a row, and the source studies.
Source every cell. Each entry traces to a paper in the coding matrix; an unsourced number in a review is indefensible.

Meta-analysis and bibliometric caution

If you assemble effect sizes into a quantitative synthesis (forest plot, meta-regression) or a co-citation map, you are doing meta-analysis or bibliometrics, with all their assumptions — comparable constructs, independence, publication-bias diagnostics, weighting. Do this only where the literature genuinely supports it; a spurious pooled magnitude or an over-interpreted co-citation cluster is less honest than a qualitative synthesis table. Annals readers include the methodologists who would catch invalid pooling.

Checklist

[ ] Each exhibit synthesizes across studies (no original-estimate regression output of the author's own)
[ ] A framework figure renders the spine and carries the "new way of seeing the field"; restate-able from memory
[ ] Synthesis-table rows ordered by the framework's cells; only comparable constructs share a column
[ ] Finding columns carry an appraisal/method note, not bare claims
[ ] A search/coverage exhibit documents the systematic process (PRISMA-style or terms table)
[ ] Any meta-analytic or bibliometric exhibit pools only commensurable work; diagnostics noted
[ ] Captions are self-contained (what / unit / how to read a row / sources)
[ ] Every cell sources to a paper in the coding matrix
[ ] An agenda/gap exhibit makes the future-research roadmap visible

Anti-patterns

Pasting a regression table of the author's own new estimates — a review reports no new results
A framework figure that merely lists topics instead of encoding the integrative argument
A synthesis table that pools incommensurable constructs into one column
A forest plot or co-citation map implying structure the literature does not support
Finding columns with no appraisal note (every reader then asks "is that study any good?")
Exhibits whose captions require the body text to be intelligible

Output format

【Exhibit set】<framework figure / synthesis tables / coverage exhibit / agenda matrix>
【Framework figure】encodes the spine + "new way of seeing"; restate-able from memory? Y/N
【Synthesis table】rows by framework cell; comparable constructs only? Y/N
【Appraisal column】present for every finding? Y/N
【Coverage exhibit】documents the systematic search (PRISMA-style)? Y/N
【Meta/bibliometric】pools only commensurable work (or omitted)? Y/N
【Sourcing】every cell traces to the coding matrix? Y/N
【Next skill】→ amann-writing-style (weave exhibits into the synthesis prose)