Before reading the text, experts look through the figures in order to grasp the whole study. A good paper is one where the figures alone carry "what was asked, how it was tested, and what was found."
The Lab Forum lecture "Writing Papers" covered the whole picture of submitting a paper (the mindset for writing, authorship, cover letters, responding to reviews). This page covers the stage before that: designing, testing, and freezing the figures. It corresponds to Figures-A → B → C of the Paper Card, and walks from the Figure 0 you drew in Lab OS Chapter 04 (Framing-B) up to the moment just before Draft.
The principles of visual design (fonts, color, alignment, diagramming techniques) are systematized in the Lab Forum lecture "Design for Research". Here we focus on what is specific to paper figures — how a figure carries a claim — and refer to design principles where needed.
B4: Learn that a figure is a "claim," not a "place to put data." M & D: Check the correspondence between the Figure 0 and the main figures on your own Paper Card. Postdocs: Develop the eye to look at a junior's figure and ask "can the claim be read?"
Records are left for a future other
The first mistake many students make is to create figures "to organize my own data." In science, there is no such thing as information summarized for yourself. Records, including lab notebooks, are left for a future other (including yourself six months from now). Figures are always made for someone else.
Pave the road so that a third party can evaluate the value of the research without stress. That is the job of a figure. A messy figure raises doubts about the integrity of the research itself. Do not make the reader spend brain resources on decoding — this is the essence of technical writing.
Aim for a state where the story is complete in the figures alone
Before reading the text closely, experts try to grasp the whole study by looking through the figures in order. An excellent paper is a visual narrative in which "what was asked, how it was tested, and what was found" is complete just by following the figures. Abandon the indulgence of treating figures as supplements to the text, and pursue the completeness where the story stands on the figures alone.
That is why figures are decided before the text. As stated in Lab OS Chapter 04, the moment the Key Contributions are decided, you should be able to say "if this figure comes out, the claim stands." If you cannot say it, the claim has not yet been designed.
One box in Figure 0 (the structure diagram of the claim) corresponds roughly to one main figure. If there are three Contributions, there are about three main figures. If you cram claim A and claim B into one figure, the reader no longer knows what to take from it. Claim B goes to the next figure.
When the set of figures works as a sequence of "mini-papers," the story of the whole paper crystallizes.
Start from empty figures showing only axes, comparisons, and elements
The purpose of Figures-A is to decide, for each figure, "what claim this figure makes." No data is needed yet. You create empty figures that show only the axes, the comparison, and the elements.
Figure list (with roles): First, list the figures that will appear in the paper, each with its role (question / setup / validity / claim) and its location. Next, the Contribution–Figure Mapping: map only the claim figures to Contributions, as in C1 → Fig.4, C2 → Fig.5. If a Contribution has no corresponding figure, it is a claim not supported by a figure. If a claim figure has no corresponding Contribution, it is a figure without a claim. The roles are explained in detail in the next section.
What to write for each figure
"One figure, one claim" is about the main figures. The figures in a paper are not only those. Some students prepare just three figures to match the Contributions and stop, but that confuses "figures that carry claims" with "figures that appear in the paper." Figures have four roles, and each role has a different design question.
| Role | Location | Job of the figure | Design question |
|---|---|---|---|
| Question figure | Introduction or start of Methods (follow the journal's convention) | Show the Gap and the Core Question. Overview of the target, conceptual model | What "question" can the reader not understand without this figure? |
| Setup figure | Methods | Show the target, apparatus, model domain, and workflow at a reproducible granularity | What procedure cannot be reproduced without this figure? |
| Validity figure | Methods or start of Results, Appendix | Show that the method is trustworthy. Benchmarks, convergence, calibration | What is shown to be trustworthy (a claim about the method)? |
| Claim figure | Results | Carry a Contribution. One-to-one with the boxes of Figure 0 | What is the Claim (one sentence)? |
Only the claim figures correspond to the boxes of Figure 0. For an Original paper, a rough guide is 2–3 claim figures and 2–3 question/setup/validity figures, 5–8 figures in total.
Whether a figure may be placed in the Introduction varies by field and journal. In the earth sciences it is common to place a map of the study area or a conceptual model as Fig.1 at the end of the Introduction or the start of Methods, while in engineering and Nature-family journals more papers place a conceptual figure in the Introduction that draws the problem setting and the overview of the method in one panel. There is one common rule: a figure in the Introduction is a conceptual figure and does not show results. When you collect papers from candidate journals in Step 1 of Framing-A, note what Fig.1 draws and in which section it appears, and the placement is settled.
Validity figures actually carry a claim: a claim about the method, "this method is trustworthy." The anticipated reviewer comments "Assumptions are unrealistic" and "Comparison is insufficient" come when the setup figures and validity figures are lacking.
The distinctions in Lab OS Chapter 02 and Chapter 04 determine the form of the figure.
| Form of the claim | Figure needed as evidence |
|---|---|
| Hypothesis-first: the law holds within the range of … | Agreement of prediction vs. observation. The boundary of the range of validity (where it fails) |
| Data-first: the data show … | The distribution of the data and its lack of bias. Reproducibility of the regularity found |
| Active inquiry: … can be used for design | The effect when used for design (comparison of time, cost, accuracy) |
| Committed to explanation: … governs … | Comparisons that eliminate alternative explanations (conditions with confounders separated) |
| Committed to prediction: … holds even under unknown conditions | Validation on data not used for training |
Look at the form of your claim and choose the form of the figure. If you try to show a regularity found data-first with a hypothesis-first figure (prediction vs. observation), something will always break.
Toward a state where the result can be foreseen the instant the title is read
Write panel titles not as "Analysis of X" but as the finding obtained, such as "X increases Y." The reader being able to foresee the result the moment they see the title maximizes the speed of understanding. At the empty-figure stage, write provisionally "X increases Y (expected)" and confirm in Figures-B.
This is the same principle as "the key point in 25 characters at the very top" in Design for Research. The key point of a slide becomes the panel title in a paper.
What to confirm at Team Meeting: does each Contribution have a corresponding figure / can the Claim of each figure be said in one sentence / does the form of the figure match the form of the claim. If it passes, on to Figures-B.
The purpose of Figures-B is to confirm with minimal data "whether the figure can support the claim." It is not about collecting all the production data first and then making figures. Fill the empty figures with a small amount of data, rough calculations, or reuse of existing data, and look for where the claim breaks.
This is the stage where the falsifiability of Lab OS Chapter 02 is carried out at the level of figures. Not "going to prove it" but "going to see where it breaks." If it does not break, the claim stands; if it breaks, revise or discard the claim. Either way is progress.
What to confirm
While testing provisionally, an interesting result appears and you think "I want to include this figure too." This is the multiplication of figures. Added figures often do not correspond to a Contribution and blur the claim of the paper. Leave the interesting result in the Research Log; if there is no box for it in this paper's Figure 0, do not include it. It becomes the Idea-0 of the next paper.
What to decide at Team Meeting: for each figure, "keep the claim / revise / discard." If revising, go back to Framing-B and rewrite the Contribution. Going back here is normal. If you proceed to Draft with figures that do not support the claim, you will end up patching things together in the Discussion, and it will collapse in review.
The purpose of Figures-C is to freeze the figures at minimum number, maximum claim power.
Write three things on the Paper Card: Frozen Figures (number, claim, and data source of each finalized figure), Figures to Remove (figures to cut and why), and Minimum Required Additional Work (what remains).
The meaning of freezing is to concentrate all subsequent work on "turning the figures into text." If, while writing the Draft, you think "actually, this figure too," that is a decision to go back to Figures-B, not a decision to add a figure within the Draft. When a figure moves, the Results and the Discussion move too.
Do the frozen main figures correspond one-to-one with the Contributions? If it passes, on to Draft (Lab Forum lecture "Writing Papers — Draft").
Once the design of the figures is decided, raise the quality of the figures themselves. Professional figure-making has three stages. Level 1 is the rules that must absolutely be kept, Level 2 is the design of the flow of information, and Level 3 is presentation.
The skill of making figures is not only for writing time. When experimental data come out, shape them that same day into a publication-quality panel and record it in the Research Log. Every day, 15–30 minutes.
Repeated daily, figure-making becomes templated, and you can finish it in the little time before going home. When you write the paper, finished panels are already at hand, and writing ends with just thinking about the composition. The "Draft is an unfolding task" stated in Writing Papers presupposes this habit.
The provisional testing of Figures-B can also start from the daily panels. Once the empty figures are designed, you can see which of the panels at hand can be used. Not making figures from zero, but choosing from the collection.