Conceptual Exhibits (phg-tables-figures)

PiHG is a review and theory journal, so its figures and tables are conceptual, not empirical. You are not plotting results (there are none); you are giving the reader a map of the argument — a typology that organizes a field, a framework diagram that shows how your concept links literatures, a genealogy that periodizes a concept, or a synthesis table that adjudicates camps. A good exhibit does synthetic work; a decorative one wastes a scarce slot in a short essay.

When to trigger

• Deciding whether an exhibit earns its place in an ~8,000-word essay
• Turning a complex synthesis into a single legible figure or table
• A reviewer said a section is "hard to follow" or "the framework is unclear"
• Building the one diagram readers will screenshot and reuse

Exhibit types that do work in a review

If an exhibit only lists what the prose already says, cut it. Every exhibit should let the reader see a relationship faster than the text can tell it.

Design for synthesis, not decoration

• The exhibit carries an argument, not ornament — a reader should grasp your re-ordering from the figure alone. Give it a claim-bearing caption ("A relational typology of platform labor," not "Overview").
• Two dimensions, not ten. A typology with too many axes is a spreadsheet; pick the two that matter.
• Name the cells' logic. A 2×2 must have a reason each quadrant exists, and ideally an under-populated cell that reveals a silence (phg-critical-intervention).
• No data dressed as concept. Do not import bibliometric counts or a VOSviewer map as if it were the argument; if you show one, it is evidence of the field's shape, clearly labeled as such.

Craft and accessibility

• Legible in grayscale and colorblind-safe; PiHG figures are often read in print/PDF.
• Vector formats (PDF/EPS/SVG) for diagrams and tables-as-figures; avoid low-resolution raster.
• Self-contained: readable without the surrounding paragraph; define any coined term in the caption.
• Count toward the essay's economy — a review is short; one or two strong exhibits beat five weak ones.

The "reuse test"

The best PiHG exhibit is the typology or framework other scholars cite and redraw. Ask: would a reader teaching this field put your figure on a slide? If it only restates your prose, it will not travel — and it is not earning its slot.

Checklist

• Each exhibit does synthetic work the prose cannot do as fast
• Claim-bearing caption; readable without the surrounding text
• Typologies use the two axes that matter; cell logic is explicit
• Any empirical/bibliometric graphic is labeled as field-evidence, not the argument
• Grayscale-legible, colorblind-safe, vector format
• Exhibit count is disciplined for a short review

Anti-patterns

• A figure that only restates the prose (decoration in a scarce slot)
• Over-dimensioned typologies that read as spreadsheets
• Importing a data/bibliometric chart and passing it off as the conceptual contribution
• Captions that label ("Framework") instead of claiming ("A relational framework linking control and precarity")
• Low-resolution or color-only figures that fail in grayscale/print

Output format

【Exhibit】typology / framework diagram / genealogy / synthesis table / agenda table
【Work it does】the relationship it lets the reader see
【Caption claim】the one-line argument the exhibit makes
【Reuse test】would a teacher put it on a slide? [Y/N]
【Accessibility】grayscale + colorblind-safe + vector? [Y/N]
【Next】phg-writing-style

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — diagramming and bibliometric-mapping tools (draw.io, VOSviewer, biblioshiny)
• ../../resources/worked-examples/01-introduction.md — the "circuit" concept as a candidate framework diagram