Evidence seems to be a particularly newsworthy topic these days, prominent in stories about weapons of mass destruction, the President's record in the National Guard, Martha Stewart's stock sales, global warming and the EPA, and so forth. "Evidence," not surprisingly, derives from "evident," which the American Heritage Dictionary defines as "easily recognizable or perceived; clear; obvious." In research, as in other domains, a manuscript's success depends not in small part on the author(s)' ability to present evidence in such a way that the reader accepts it as obvious. It is, of course, much easier to see the flaws in the presentation of another's evidence than in one's own. In this article, the authors provide some thoughts on evidence. Based on anecdotal evidence, the error more frequently made by authors is to assume too much of the reader, to assume that the reader "speaks the same language" and is able to infer what is not explicit. The authors contend that if this is true, potential authors might consider not only ensuring that the evidence is sound, but making certain that it is explicit, obvious, clear--evident.