blog

As important tools for documenting and communicating research results, Helena Jambor and Christopher Schmied outline the need for their proposed workflow for high quality images in research, before highlighting the importance of open peer review in providing opportunities for discussion.

Helena Jambor: I am a PhD biologist by training, but for several years, I have worked as a specialist for biomedical data visualisation, currently at the Dresden University Hospital (Germany). I teach undergraduate students bioinformatics and data visualisation and give workshops for PhD students in visual communication of data – this includes image data and the ‘dos and don’ts’ of presenting them. 

Christopher Schmied: My undergraduate studies were in molecular biology and genetics. During my PhD, I realized how much fun it is to develop and apply computer science methods to biology. Now I work as a Data Scientist at the FMP Berlin (Germany), developing methods and workflows to accelerate biomedical research. I love to communicate and translate between different domains to drive interdisciplinary research projects forward. I also provide courses, training, and consultation to biomedical researchers.

Developing a workflow for improved image quality in research

Images, like any data, must be processed reproducibly and presented in an understandable manner to be useful information for other scientists. We noticed that images in publications, but also in presentations at conferences and lab meetings, often do not show the result clearly or miss key information. We believe that scientists just lack the necessary training in image acquisition and processing, therefore we wanted to provide easy to access and adaptable teaching materials for wide circulation at imaging facilities, biology labs, and for undergraduate courses. The workflow is a cumulation of our joined teaching experience, training well over 1000 PhD students in workshops, 1-on-1 training and consultations. Their (often very basic) questions and ambition to improve their image data cumulated in our proposed workflow. 

Improving accessibility to research

Images are an important avenue for documenting and communicating research results. In order to make our research easily understandable and accessible to a wide audience, it is important that we present images in a legible manner, including the important information at a glance. 

If we understand what is presented in a figure, without digging too deep into the methods or the research background, we are also more inclined to value and trust the research presented. Many years of hard scientific work should not be hidden behind illegible image and figures. Moreover, if an image is not decodable by researchers today – if we can’t understand how it was captured, what tissue or species is shown, what the colours mean – we can be assured that the image will also not be understandable by future scientists. Thus, poor image quality also lowers the long-term value of a paper for our common scientific legacy. 

Looking ahead: applying workflows and cheat sheets to future research

We would love if scientists would widely share our cheat sheets, using and adapting our template to develop similar cheat sheets for maybe more specialised applications. We were inspired by the poster-cheat sheet presented by Jacquemet and Leterrier (Journal of Cell Science (2020) 133, jcs240713. doi:10.1242/jcs.240713).

We would also be delighted if scientists started developing translations of the cheat sheets to further expand their reach. It would also be great if a microscopy company, for example, made a print for promotional purposes and it ends up hanging in the hallways of microscopy rooms – a place where many have to pass idle time between imaging runs. 

Open peer review and the opportunity for discussion

Much like a Q&A after a public seminar, we feel that open questions and answers can only highlight the core values of the scientific community: asking questions, also very critical questions or questions that might be too simple, and through the answers we highlight our collective thought processes.

A good review process is similar to this question and answer format, and rarely fails to improve the quality of the paper. The open review process in addition allows this core scientific value to become visible and fully transparent. We believe that this transparency promotes trust in the scientific process, and allows the important contribution of the reviewers to be visible.

Read Jambor and Schmied’s full article: Effective image visualization for publications – a workflow using open access tools and concepts