Koós, Antal, et.al. «Comparison of structural changes in nitrogen and boron-doped multi-walled carbon nanotubes.» Carbon 48.11 (2010). 3033-41. Article of the Future version <http://articleofthefuture.com/S0008622310002770/> 22 January 2014.

The research highlights have hyperlinks to an experimental flowchart and three graphs. The sum of this is a very compact and quick way of surveying the main results. To my untrained eye, it seems even faster than reading an abstract.

The introduction moves very effectively from the general area of research, nanotubes, to the specifics of this set of experiments in just four sentences.

Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) [1] are the subject of widespread research due to their outstanding properties [2,3] but precise control of their properties has yet to be realised. Moreover, a vast number of potential applications of conventional and doped nanotubes can be found in the literature, however, these are limited by the low yields and general availability of nanotubes possessing well defined properties. Accurate control over the nanotube properties is essential if the many applications envisaged are indeed to be realised. Theoretical [4] and experimental studies [5–7] have shown that it is possible to tailor the electronic properties of the nanotubes by replacing some of the carbon atoms with heteroatoms [8]. Furthermore the incorporation of these heteroatoms also changes the nanotube structure [9,10], chemical reactivity [11] and mechanical properties [12], presenting the possibility of controlling nanotube properties.

There are no unique Web features in this prototype, but this is the first paper I read that demonstrate the usefulness of the Interactive charts. The original graphs in this paper are very dense, with many series printed on top of each other and a difficult legend. Being able to turn off the coloring of series in the interactive chart makes it much easier to inspect, and the cross-hairs tool makes it possible to read each data point precisely.

This is the third paper I read with a IER&DC structure (Introduction, Experimental, Results and Discussion, Conclusions). The results are given for each experiment in a row, and then discussed, wich is easy to follow. The «conlusions» are just summaries of the articles in all thre examples I have seen.