Scientific figures rejected: Why Scientific Figures Get Rejected by Journals (And How to Fix Them)
Many manuscript submissions fail — not because of the science, but because of the figures.
Figures are the first thing reviewers see, and poor visuals can undermine even strong data.
If your scientific figures have ever been flagged during peer review or rejected by editors, you're not alone.
This guide explains the most common reasons scientific figures get rejected — and how to redesign them to meet journal standards.
1. Low Resolution or Incorrect Formatting
This is the single most common technical reason for rejection.
Journals often require:
- 300–600 DPI
- TIFF, PNG, or vector (SVG/PDF/AI) depending on figure type
- correct color profile (RGB for online, CMYK for print)
- specific pixel dimensions
- exact panel spacing
- no compression artifacts
❌ Problems reviewers note:
- blurry labels
- pixelated icons
- fuzzy edges
- inconsistent DPI across panels
- figures scaled incorrectly in Word
✔ How to fix:
- export from vector sources
- set DPI manually
- avoid screenshots
- use journal-preferred formats
- remake the figure in high resolution if needed
Technical precision matters.
2. Unclear or Inconsistent Color Use
Color is a scientific tool, not decoration.
Journals reject figures when color communicates poorly.
❌ Common issues:
- too many bright colors
- inconsistent color meaning across panels
- red vs. green (colorblind issue)
- low contrast
- colors chosen randomly
- pathways with rainbow palettes
- similar shades that merge at publication size
✔ How to fix:
- use 3–5 core colors
- maintain color consistency
- use colorblind-safe palettes
- test in grayscale
- emphasize contrast, not saturation
Color should support the story, not distract from it.
3. Overcrowded Figures With Too Much Information
Many researchers try to include:
- every arrow
- every enzyme
- every feedback loop
- every pathway branch
- every label
- every condition
This overwhelms readers and reviewers.
❌ Reviewers often say:
- “Figure is too dense.”
- “Hard to interpret.”
- “Unreadable at journal size.”
✔ How to fix:
- simplify heavily
- highlight only the essential mechanism
- group elements
- use modular diagrams
- move secondary details to supplements
Great figures communicate, not exhaust.
4. Poor Layout or Visual Hierarchy
A figure should guide the viewer’s eye logically.
❌ Common layout issues:
- no clear focal point
- chaotic arrangement
- overlapping elements
- arrows crossing each other
- misaligned panels
- inconsistent panel sizes
- uneven spacing
✔ How to fix:
- enforce alignment
- maintain even spacing
- use clear directional flow
- limit crossing lines
- create a strong central message
A good layout makes the science intuitive.
5. Labels That Are Too Small or Hard to Read
Reviewers often reject figures simply because the labels:
- are too small
- overlap edges
- use thin fonts
- blend into backgrounds
- fall below journal minimum size
- are illegible at print scale
✔ How to fix:
- use consistent, readable fonts
- increase label size
- separate text from busy areas
- use clean sans-serif typography
- ensure spacing around text
- export at the final figure size
If labels can’t be read, the figure fails.
6. Misleading or Inaccurate Scientific Representation
Scientific integrity is critical.
❌ Rejected for:
- inaccurate pathways
- wrong binding site placement
- mismatched protein proportions
- misleading arrows
- incorrect localization
- exaggerated shapes without note
- artistic liberties that distort biology
✔ How to fix:
- base figures on solid references
- simplify without misrepresenting
- clearly mark hypothetical aspects
- maintain biological proportions
- validate with co-authors
Accuracy builds trust and credibility.
7. Inconsistent Style Across Figure Panels
In multi-panel figures (A, B, C…), inconsistency is a major reason for revision requests.
❌ Common inconsistencies:
- different fonts
- different line thicknesses
- different color logic
- unrelated visual style
- mismatched backgrounds
- inconsistent icon shapes
✔ How to fix:
- create a unified style sheet
- match fonts, sizes, and colors
- unify line weights
- redesign panels to share a theme
Consistency = professionalism.
8. Overuse of Effects or Artistic Decoration
Scientific figures must be:
- clean
- readable
- functional
❌ Rejected for:
- excessive gradients
- unnecessary 3D effects
- shadows that obscure clarity
- glossy or cartoon-like styles
- visual noise
✔ Use styles that enhance:
- clarity
- separation of elements
- depth without distraction
Restraint is essential.
9. Figures That Do Not Match the Manuscript
A surprisingly frequent reviewer complaint.
Examples include:
- colors not reflecting described states
- missing components
- outdated mechanism in the figure
- inconsistent terminology
- mismatched labels
- figure contradicting text description
✔ How to fix:
- align figure creation with manuscript stage
- cross-check terminology
- validate with all co-authors
- update visuals when data changes
The figure is part of the scientific argument — it must match the text.
10. Not Following the Journal’s Instructions
Each journal has strict guidelines.
Examples:
- Cell uses minimalistic vector style
- Nature uses bold, colorful, dramatic visuals
- EMBO favors clean, soft biological tones
- PNAS prefers clarity with limited artistic effects
❌ Rejected for:
- wrong dimension
- wrong orientation
- wrong font
- wrong spacing
- wrong format
- wrong color profile
✔ How to fix:
Always check the "Instructions for Authors" before designing the figure.
How I Help Researchers Redesign Figures for Journal Acceptance
My scientific figure redesign process includes:
✔ full figure review
Identifying clarity and accuracy issues.
✔ simplification
Removing clutter while improving the science.
✔ unified style
Color, fonts, shading, layout consistency.
✔ vector-based redesign
Crisp, scalable, clean visuals.
✔ journal formatting
Correct DPI, color space, labels, spacing.
✔ scientific accuracy
Validating mechanisms with your team.
✔ final export
Journal-readyfiles in exact specifications.
This dramatically improves acceptance likelihood.
Need Your Figures Redesigned for a Manuscript Submission?
If your figures were flagged by reviewers — or if you want them professionally redesigned before submission — I can help create clear, accurate, visually coherent figures that match journal standards.
Send your current figures or sketches, and I’ll propose a redesign within 24 hours.