4.6 Article

Creating clear and informative image-based figures for scientific publications

Journal

PLOS BIOLOGY
Volume 19, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001161

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. American Heart Association [16GRNT30950002]
  2. Robert W. Fulk Career Development Award (Mayo Clinic Division of Nephrology Hypertension)
  3. Hormel Foundation
  4. National Institutes of Health [CA187035]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

While many resources discuss fraudulent image manipulation and technical specifications for image acquisition, data on the legibility and interpretability of images are scarce, and common problems still exist in non-blot images published in three fields, such as missing scale bars and misplaced or poorly marked insets.
Scientists routinely use images to display data. Readers often examine figures first; therefore, it is important that figures are accessible to a broad audience. Many resources discuss fraudulent image manipulation and technical specifications for image acquisition; however, data on the legibility and interpretability of images are scarce. We systematically examined these factors in non-blot images published in the top 15 journals in 3 fields; plant sciences, cell biology, and physiology (n = 580 papers). Common problems included missing scale bars, misplaced or poorly marked insets, images or labels that were not accessible to colorblind readers, and insufficient explanations of colors, labels, annotations, or the species and tissue or object depicted in the image. Papers that met all good practice criteria examined for all image-based figures were uncommon (physiology 16%, cell biology 12%, plant sciences 2%). We present detailed descriptions and visual examples to help scientists avoid common pitfalls when publishing images. Our recommendations address image magnification, scale information, insets, annotation, and color and may encourage discussion about quality standards for bioimage publishing.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available