Avoiding common pitfalls of manuscript and figure preparation

Community-developed checklists for publishing images and image analyses

Images document scientific discoveries and are prevalent in modern biomedical research. Microscopy imaging in particular is currently undergoing rapid technological advancements. However, for scientists wishing to publish obtained images and image-analysis results, there are currently no unified guidelines for best practices. Consequently, microscopy images and image data in publications may be unclear or difficult to interpret. Here, we present community-developed checklists for preparing light microscopy images and describing image analyses for publications. These checklists offer authors, readers and publishers key recommendations for image formatting and annotation, color selection, data availability and reporting image-analysis workflows. The goal of our guidelines is to increase the clarity and reproducibility of image figures and thereby to heighten the quality and explanatory power of microscopy data.

How to write a good scientific review article

Literature reviews are valuable resources for the scientific community. With research accelerating at an unprecedented speed in recent years and more and more original papers being published, review articles have become increasingly important as a means to keep up to date with developments in a particular area of research. A good review article provides readers with an in-depth understanding of a field and highlights key gaps and challenges to address with future research. Writing a review article also helps to expand the writer's knowledge of their specialist area and to develop their analytical and communication skills, amongst other benefits. Thus, the importance of building review-writing into a scientific career cannot be overstated. In this instalment of The FEBS Journal's Words of Advice series, I provide detailed guidance on planning and writing an informative and engaging literature review.

How to Review a Surgical Scientific Paper: A Guide for Critical Appraisal

It is important for surgeons to participate in the peer-review process of scientific literature. As the number of published manuscripts continues to increase, there is a great need for volunteerism in this arena. However, there is little formal or informal training, which can help surgeons provide unbiased and meaningful reviews. Therefore, it is critical to provide more resources and guidelines to aid surgeons during the review process. The purpose of this paper is to provide a structured guide for a quality review of a surgical paper. This review represents the work of the Association of Women Surgeons Publications Committee.

Analysis and Correction of Inappropriate Image Duplication: the Molecular and Cellular Biology Experience

We analyzed 960 papers published in Molecular and Cellular Biology (MCB) from 2009 to 2016 and found 59 (6.1%) to contain inappropriately duplicated images. The 59 instances of inappropriate image duplication led to 41 corrections, 5 retractions, and 13 instances in which no action was taken. Our experience suggests that the majority of inappropriate image duplications result from errors during figure preparation that can be remedied by correction. Nevertheless, ∼10% of papers with inappropriate image duplications in MCB were retracted (∼0.5% of total). If this proportion is representative, then as many as 35,000 papers in the literature are candidates for retraction due to inappropriate image duplication. The resolution of inappropriate image duplication concerns after publication required an average of 6 h of journal staff time per published paper. MCB instituted a pilot program to screen images of accepted papers prior to publication that identified 12 manuscripts (14.5% out of 83) with image concerns in 2 months. The screening and correction of papers before publication required an average of 30 min of staff time per problematic paper. Image screening can identify papers with problematic images prior to publication, reduces postpublication problems, and requires less staff time than the correction of problems after publication.

How to design an outstanding poster

Poster sessions are an important forum for getting feedback on your results and engaging with the scientific community. In this instalment of the Words of Advice series, we provide you with a guide to designing an outstanding poster and offer tips on how to effectively communicate your results using your poster.

Best practice in research: Consensus Statement on Ethnopharmacological Field Studies - ConSEFS

BACKGROUND

Ethnopharmacological research aims at gathering information on local and traditional uses of plants and other natural substances. However, the approaches used and the methods employed vary, and while such a variability is desirable in terms of scientific diversity, research must adhere to well defined quality standards and reproducible methods OBJECTIVES: With ConSEFS (the Consensus Statement on Ethnopharmacological Field Studies) we want to define best-practice in developing, conducting and reporting field studies focusing on local and traditional uses of medicinal and food plants, including studies using a historical approach.

METHODS

After first developing an initial draft the core group invited community-wide feedback from researchers both through a web-based consultation and a series of workshops at conferences during 2017.

OUTCOMES

The consultation resulted in a large number of responses. Feedback was received via a weblink on the Journal of Ethnopharmacology's website (ca. 100 responses), other oral and written responses (ca. 50) and discussions with stakeholders at four conferences. The main outcome is a checklist, covering best practice for designing, implementing and recording ethnopharmacological field studies and historical studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Prior to starting ethnopharmacological field research, it is essential that the authors are fully aware of the best practice in the field. For the first time in the field of ethnopharmacology a community-wide document defines guidelines for best practice on how to conduct and report such studies. It will need to be updated and further developed. While the feedback has been based on responses by many experienced researchers, there is a need to test it in practice by using it both in implementing and reporting field studies (or historical studies), and peer-review.

The FEBS Journal in 2018 - putting a bit of color in your life, and your figures

Seamus Martin holds the Smurfit Chair of Medical Genetics at the Smurfit Institute of Genetics, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. He works on all aspects of cell death control and is especially interested in the links between cell death, cell stress and inflammation. He received the GlaxoSmithKline Award of The Biochemical Society (2006) and The RDS-Irish Times Boyle Medal (2015) for his work on the role of caspases in apoptosis and was elected to the Royal Irish Academy in 2006 and EMBO in 2009. He is the Editor-in-Chief of The FEBS Journal since 2014.