Resubmitting a key manuscript
When design challenges overshadow strong science during peer review, Felice Information Design partners with an assistant professor who is short on time and comfort with design
Before
“A journal reviewer specifically mentioned that our figures looked unfinished and sloppy. … My revisions felt inadequate. The reviewers were just going to see more problems, because the figures still weren't clear. And I didn’t know what to do.”
After
“The figures look so much better! I'm thinking, ‘Yes, this will be my flagship paper.’ Julia just took it to the next level, where she didn’t just make it convincing – now everyone can understand it, not just the people in my lab.”
Read the story below:
A publishing priority
We had spent years on this manuscript. Before submitting, we’d gotten feedback from six faculty members, and had a professional scientific editor go over it.
But one journal reviewer specifically mentioned that the figures looked unfinished and sloppy. I think they were annoyed because they wanted to understand; they’d also said our work was clearly important for the field and the study was designed well.
Stuck on reviewer feedback
This is usually when I feel completely out of my wheelhouse. This result is so exciting, how do we show this? Honestly, I’ll get really stumped. You go to the statistician, and the program creates the plot – and it’s not convincing. Which feels terrible.
So I just started putting band aids on – small things we could do in response to specific comments – but my revisions felt inadequate. The reviewers were just going to see more problems, because the figures still weren't clear. And I didn't know what to do. I was scared to do anything more significant because I'm always nervous about changing a figure in a way that unintentionally changes its meaning.
A professional design partnership
As a former colleague of Julia’s, it felt safe to work with her because I knew she had the scientific background and training to notice the details and know what was important for accuracy. It was easier to tell her things and make requests; she knew what the point was. Those are error bars, and they better show up in the identical place in the redo.
Sometimes when I get excited about something or try to convey a lot of information, I'm just not as clear as I can be. The advantage of working with Julia is she has the scientific background where she can understand and speak the language.
A stronger product, ahead of schedule
With Julia’s help, I resubmitted weeks earlier than I would have on my own, and with a better final product. When she shared ideas about how she might improve my figures, I thought, Of course, that makes so much sense! But I'm too close to it. I needed the fresh perspective she brought.
She specifically identified and fixed a key problem with how we’d used colors to show meaning in the original figures. As soon as I saw it, I knew it was a major issue – but I still didn't have it in me to fix it. I don't mess with [Adobe] Illustrator. It takes hours, and I don't have time to deal with it.
From stuck to confident
I’m really excited about this manuscript now. The figures look so much better! I'm thinking, ‘Yes, this will be my flagship paper.’
Julia just took it to the next level, where she didn’t just make it convincing – now everyone can understand it, not just the people in my lab.
I can tell something looks wrong about a figure, I just don’t know what it is. Julia figures it out and fixes it. She also did a great job explaining why certain design choices would better support my key ideas. I suspect that when I look at the figures for my next paper, I’ll have a better idea of how to improve things.
I think that scientists take visual design for granted too much. Packaging matters with grants and manuscripts. It really is the packaging that will take it over the edge. It will sway the reviewers – it affects their mood, whether they know it or not.