What Editors and Reviewers Look for in Scientific Figures: A Practical Guide for Researchers

In today’s highly competitive publishing landscape, scientific figures are no longer just visual supplements to a manuscript—they are central to how research is evaluated, understood, and remembered. Editors and peer reviewers often form their first impression of a paper by scanning its figures before reading the full text. Understanding what they look for can significantly improve a manuscript’s chances of acceptance.

This article breaks down the key criteria editors and reviewers use when assessing scientific figures, supported by real publishing insights and data, and offers practical guidance for researchers preparing figures for submission.

1. Scientific Accuracy Comes First

Above all else, editors and reviewers expect figures to faithfully represent the underlying data. Any visual distortion—intentional or not—can raise serious concerns about research integrity.

A 2023 survey published in Research Integrity and Peer Review reported that nearly 30% of figure-related revision requests stemmed from unclear data processing, inconsistent scales, or misleading visual emphasis. Common red flags include truncated axes, inconsistent normalization, or unexplained image manipulation.

Editors are not necessarily looking for flashy visuals; they want figures that are technically correct, reproducible, and transparently derived from the data described in the methods section.

2. Clarity and Readability Matter More Than Complexity

Reviewers often evaluate dozens of manuscripts under tight time constraints. Figures that communicate their message quickly and clearly stand out.

Key elements reviewers pay attention to include:

• Legible labels and axis titles

• Consistent color schemes across panels

• Adequate resolution for both screen and print

• Logical panel organization (e.g., left-to-right or top-to-bottom flow)

According to internal editorial guidelines shared by several major publishers, figures that require excessive cross-referencing to the text are more likely to be flagged for revision. Effective figure Design reduces cognitive load and allows the figure to “stand on its own.”

3. Visual Consistency Signals Professionalism

Editors are highly sensitive to visual consistency, especially in multi-figure manuscripts. Uniform fonts, line weights, color usage, and annotation styles signal that the authors have taken care in presenting their work.

In contrast, inconsistent styling across figures may subconsciously suggest fragmented data sources or rushed preparation—even when the science itself is solid. This is particularly important for interdisciplinary journals, where readers may rely more heavily on visual cues than domain-specific terminology.

4. Figures Should Tell a Story, Not Just Show Data

High-impact journals increasingly emphasize narrative coherence in figures. Reviewers often ask:

• Does the figure support a specific claim?

• Is the progression from Figure 1 to Figure N logically structured?

• Are key findings visually highlighted without exaggeration?

A well-constructed figure sequence can guide reviewers through the core logic of the study, sometimes more effectively than paragraphs of text. This storytelling mindset is also why journals invest heavily in graphical abstracts and, at the highest level, cover design, where a single image must distill the essence of an entire study.

5. Compliance With Journal Guidelines Is Non-Negotiable

Even excellent figures can be delayed—or rejected—if they fail to meet technical requirements. Editors routinely check:

• File formats (e.g., TIFF, EPS, PDF)

• Minimum resolution (often 300–600 dpi)

• Color mode (RGB vs. CMYK)

• Accessibility considerations, such as color-blind–safe palettes

Data from a large biomedical publisher indicate that over 40% of initial technical checks involve figure-related issues, making this one of the most avoidable causes of submission delays.

Conclusion: Think Like an Editor

To editors and reviewers, scientific figures are not decorative elements—they are condensed arguments. The best figures combine accuracy, clarity, consistency, and narrative purpose, while strictly adhering to journal standards.

By designing figures with the reviewer’s perspective in mind, researchers can reduce revision cycles, improve comprehension, and ultimately increase the impact of their work. In an era of information overload, a well-crafted figure may be the deciding factor that turns a good paper into a published one.