TY - JOUR
T1 - Creating clear and informative image-based figures for scientific publications
AU - Jambor, Helena
AU - Antonietti, Alberto
AU - Alicea, Bradly
AU - Audisio, Tracy L.
AU - Auer, Susann
AU - Bhardwaj, Vivek
AU - Burgess, Steven J.
AU - Ferling, Iuliia
AU - Gazda, Małgorzata Anna
AU - Hoeppner, Luke H.
AU - Ilangovan, Vinodh
AU - Lo, Hung
AU - Olson, Mischa
AU - Mohamed, Salem Yousef
AU - Sarabipour, Sarvenaz
AU - Varma, Aalok
AU - Walavalkar, Kaivalya
AU - Wissink, Erin M.
AU - Weissgerber, Tracey L.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Jambor et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
PY - 2021/3/31
Y1 - 2021/3/31
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85104276622&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85104276622&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1371/JOURNAL.PBIO.3001161
DO - 10.1371/JOURNAL.PBIO.3001161
M3 - Article
C2 - 33788834
AN - SCOPUS:85104276622
SN - 1544-9173
VL - 19
JO - PLoS biology
JF - PLoS biology
IS - 3
M1 - e3001161
ER -