Purplelink
← Why it matters

Manuscript red-team reference · companion to Paper Review

figure presentation issues

Broken axes, missing error bars, color-only encoding.

What it is

A figure can be technically correct and still mislead — broken y-axes that exaggerate small differences, plotted means without error bars hiding variance, log-scale axes labelled as linear, color-only encoding that fails for colourblind readers, fonts too small to read at journal column width. These aren't fraud; they're presentation choices that change what the reader perceives.

Why a reviewer cares

Reviewers notice when the visual narrative is louder than the data. They'll ask for redraws, raw values, or alternative encodings. Persistent presentation problems suggest carelessness — or worse, an attempt to nudge readers past a weak result.

How to fix it

Use continuous y-axes unless there's a compelling reason for a break. Show error bars on plotted means, with a caption that names what they are (SD, SEM, 95% CI). Don't rely on colour alone — pair it with shape or pattern. Test legibility at journal column width before submission.


This is one of ~15 canonical methodology explainers Paper Review's red-team report links to. To get a full review of your manuscript, start a Paper Review — $5.