Dataset Information

Creating clear and informative image-based figures for scientific publications.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Jambor H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8041175 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Creating clear and informative image-based figures for scientific publications.

Jambor Helena H Antonietti Alberto A Alicea Bradly B Audisio Tracy L TL Auer Susann S Bhardwaj Vivek V Burgess Steven J SJ Ferling Iuliia I Gazda Małgorzata Anna MA Hoeppner Luke H LH Ilangovan Vinodh V Lo Hung H Olson Mischa M Mohamed Salem Yousef SY Sarabipour Sarvenaz S Varma Aalok A Walavalkar Kaivalya K Wissink Erin M EM Weissgerber Tracey L TL

PLoS biology 20210331 3

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 = 58 ...[more]

PMID: 33788834

Similar Datasets

Project description:The rapid development of modern science nowadays makes it rather challenging to pick out valuable ideas from massive scientific literature. Existing widely-adopted citation-based metrics are not adequate for measuring how well the idea presented by a single publication is developed and whether it is worth following. Here, inspired by traditional X-ray imaging, which returns internal structure imaging of real objects along with corresponding structure analysis, we propose Scientific X-ray, a framework that quantifies the development degree and development potential for any scientific idea through an assembly of ‘X-ray’ scanning, visualization and parsing operated on the citation network associated with a target publication. We pick all 71,431 scientific articles of citation counts over 1,000 as high-impact target publications among totally 204,664,199 publications that cover 16 disciplines spanning from 1800 to 2021. Our proposed Scientific X-ray reproduces how an idea evolves from the very original target publication all the way to the up to date status via an extracted ‘idea tree’ that attempts to preserve the most representative idea flow structure underneath each citation network. Interestingly, we observe that while the citation counts of publications may increase unlimitedly, the maximum valid idea inheritance of those target publications, i.e., the valid depth of the idea tree, cannot exceed a limit of six hops, and the idea evolution structure of any arbitrary publication unexceptionally falls into six fixed patterns. Combined with a development potential index that we further design based on the extracted idea tree, Scientific X-ray can vividly tell how further a given idea presented by a given publication can still go from any well-established starting point. Scientific X-ray successfully identifies 40 out of 49 topics of Nobel prize as high-potential topics by their prize-winning papers in an average of nine years before the prizes are released. Various trials on articles of diverse topics also confirm the power of Scientific X-ray in digging out influential/promising ideas. Scientific X-ray is user-friendly to researchers with any level of expertise, thus providing important basis for grasping research trends, helping scientific policy-making and even promoting social development.

Project description:In addition to its primary regulatory role, the Office of Hematology and Oncology Products at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is engaged in many forms of scientific authorship. During the period of 2010 to 2018, FDA oncology staff contributed to 356 publications in the scientific literature. Here, we collaborated with analysts in the Office of Program Planning, Analysis, and Evaluation at the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health (NIH), to present a series of analyses aimed at quantifying the characteristics and potential impact of these contributions, as well as characterizing the areas of work addressed. We found that FDA oncology papers are enriched for high-impact publications and have about two times the number of citations as an average NIH-funded paper. Further impact of the publications was measured based on the presence of 65 publications that were cited by guidelines and 12 publications cited by publicly listed clinical trials. The results seen here are promising in determining the impact of FDA oncology publication work but prompt further investigation into longer-term impacts, such as the influence of this work on other regulatory activities at FDA. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This article describes the first comprehensive study of scientific publications produced by U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oncology staff. The analysis illustrates that staff are highly engaged in publishing in the scientific literature in addition to completing regulatory review work. Publications are generally in clinical medicine, consistent with the large number of medical oncologists working at the Office of Hematology and Oncology Products (OHOP). OHOP publications generally focus either on communicating important regulatory work (approval summaries) or highlighting regulatory science issues to encourage dialogue with the scientific community (commentaries, reviews, and expert working papers). The analysis also suggests that several FDA oncology publications may influence clinical guidelines, but further work is needed to evaluate impact.

Dataset Information

Creating clear and informative image-based figures for scientific publications.

Publications

Creating clear and informative image-based figures for scientific publications.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets