ReviewNature methods2024
Community-developed checklists for publishing images and image analyses.
Review in Nature methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
45 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ten simple rules for preparing and delivering effective funding pitches in competitive grant applications.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- The graphical abstract.Nature methods · 2026Article
- Open and sustainable AI: challenges, opportunities and the road ahead in the life sciences.Nature methods · 2026Review
- A human induced pluripotent stem cell model for the holistic study of epithelial-to-mesenchymal transitions.Nature methods · 2026Article
- Review
- Points of View, anew.Nature methods · 2026Article
- Practical statistics for bioimage analysis - a guide to experimental design and data interpretation.Journal of cell science · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-powered microscopy: Transforming the landscape of parasitology.Journal of microscopy · 2026Review
- Advances in Coumarin Fluorescent Probes for Medical Diagnostics: A Review of Recent Developments.Biosensors · 2026Review
- Reproducibility roadblocks and standardization in carbon dot synthesis: a critical review of current practices, challenges, and future directions.Mikrochimica acta · 2025Review
- Article
- Article
- Best practices in plant fluorescence imaging and reporting: A primer.The Plant cell · 2025Review
- A checklist for designing and improving the visualization of scientific data.Nature cell biology · 2025Article
- Addressing persistent challenges in digital image analysis of cancer tissue: resources developed from a hackathon.Molecular oncology · 2025Review
- Reporting light microscopy data in our pages.Nature structural & molecular biology · 2025Article
- Colony context and size-dependent compensation mechanisms give rise to variations in nuclear growth trajectories.Cell systems · 2025Article
- Morphological profiling data resource enables prediction of chemical compound properties.iScience · 2025Article
- Bridging imaging-based in vitro methods from biomedical research to regulatory toxicology.Archives of toxicology · 2025Review
- Integrating bioengineering, super-resolution microscopy and mechanobiology in autophagy research: addendum to the guidelines (4th edition).Autophagy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
54 authors.
Funding
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.