When I'm done dissertating I think I'll relaunch my editing business to focus exclusively on fixing indecipherable flowcharts, concept maps, and system charts. 
I imagine "fixing" would mean "getting rid of" about 90% of the time.
I use mind maps and concept maps all the time, to clarify my own thinking. But the reason they work for me is that I see them being built, layer by layer, and I understand the shorthand I'm using. They're utterly meaningless to a naive reader.
Most of them have no visual hierarchy, and the reader has no idea where to look first.
That figure's from a *published paper* on evidence-informed decision making: bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.11…
I think peer reviewers should be explicitly asked to critically evaluate whether a map or flowchart adds value.
I think peer reviewers should be explicitly asked to critically evaluate whether a map or flowchart adds value.
Think of mind maps and concept maps as outlines or sketches. They're an important part of the thinking and writing process, but you'd never publish those as is.
Easy rule: Show your diagram to someone outside your group, and if their first reaction is "Huh?", don't publish it.
Easy rule: Show your diagram to someone outside your group, and if their first reaction is "Huh?", don't publish it.
(BTW I have related—and apparently controversial?—feelings about the products of graphic facilitation. They're often quite pretty, and they can be useful memory aids for people who were at the event. But don't expect people who weren't there to understand.)
