Hi Justin and Holger, I've been using the latex() command in the Hmisc library in R to make my tables, which has been pretty simple. My output is very professional-looking and should be easy for anyone reviewing this portion of the project (i.e., the teaching team and other groups) to follow. However, while the numbers match the numbers in our original article, the table format is different. For example, the original article has a "Table 3" with 5 columns, text explaining how the columns differ, stars for stargazing, and standard errors presented in parentheses beneath each coefficient. I have a separate table for each column in Table 1, with separate columns for coefficients, standard errors, and p-values. Instead of paragraphs explaining what each column represents, I state in the title or in a footnote to each table what variables are missing from each regression and what each column represents. My output is not presented in the best way to "minimize real estate" in journals, nor is it presented in the most efficient way for an actual publication. However, at this stage of this particular project, we have found that looking at the output produced by the latex() command is easier to read, and helps us to interpret our replication. We think that presenting the data in this format will also make it much clearer to others who do not have fluency in the original article text. So my question is: at this stage of the project, Do I need to be concerned with making actual publication-quality tables, or replicating the format of the author's tables exactly? Or should I be primarily concerned with presenting the data neatly and in a way that I think will be most useful to those looking at this stage of the project? Thanks, Jill