figure file naming conventions: How to Name and Organize Submission Files

Why figure file naming conventions matter before submission

Good figure file naming conventions are not cosmetic. They protect your research team from uploading the wrong panel, losing a revision, or wasting the final hour before submission on detective work. When figures move between authors, designers, statisticians, and journal portals, vague names like final2.tif or graph_new.png become liabilities. A clear naming system tells you what the file is, where it belongs, and whether it is safe to submit.

Most submission problems are not caused by laziness. They happen because figure files are created over weeks or months, often by several people using different tools. One person exports from R, another edits in Illustrator, and another compresses files for the journal system. Without agreed rules, the folder slowly becomes a junk drawer.

This guide gives your team a practical system for naming and organizing figure files from first draft through revision. It is intentionally simple. The goal is not to create bureaucracy. The goal is to make the correct file obvious.

Start with the journal, but build a team system

Before you name anything, check the target journal requirements. Some journals request separate figure files, specific formats, or strict resolution settings. The National Library of Medicine provides useful technical guidance for image files, including format and resolution expectations, in its PMC image file specifications. Your journal may differ, but this gives you a credible baseline.

However, journal rules rarely solve team workflow. A portal may ask for Figure 1.tif, but your team still needs to know which source file created it, which version was approved, and whether the legend matches. That is where internal figure file naming conventions become essential.

Use the journal naming requirement only for the final export set. Keep your working files named with more detail. Then, when submission is ready, create a clean submission folder containing journal-compliant file names. Never overwrite the working archive just to satisfy a portal.

The anatomy of a useful figure file name

A good figure file name answers five questions: manuscript, figure number, content, version, and status. You do not need a sentence. You need a compact pattern that every teammate can read at a glance.

A reliable format looks like this: shortproject_fig01_main-results_v03_approved.tif. For a panel file, use shortproject_fig02_panel-b_western-blot_v02_review.png. The exact words can vary, but the order should stay fixed. Fixed order makes files sort correctly and reduces interpretation.

Use lowercase letters, numbers, and hyphens or underscores. Avoid spaces, special characters, punctuation marks, and long descriptive names. File systems usually tolerate messy names, but journal portals and shared drives can behave unpredictably. Simple names travel better.

Here is a strong naming structure for most research teams:

• Project code: a short manuscript or study identifier, such as neuroinflamm or mri-cohort.
• Figure number: fig01, fig02, fig03, or suppfig01.
• Panel or type: panel-a, composite, graphical-abstract, or source-data.
• Short descriptor: survival-curve, confocal, pathway-map, or dose-response.
• Version: v01, v02, v03, with two digits for clean sorting.
• Status: draft, review, approved, submitted, or revised.

Do not include the entire paper title. Do not include author initials unless your team truly needs them. Names should be specific enough to prevent confusion, but short enough to scan quickly.

figure file naming conventions for main, supplemental, and source files

Main figures, supplemental figures, and source files should follow the same logic, but they should not be mixed without labels. The figure type belongs in the name. This is especially important when supplemental files are renumbered late in a manuscript.

For main figures, use fig01, fig02, and so on. For supplemental figures, use suppfig01 or sfig01, depending on your journal style. Pick one and stay with it. For source files, add source or editable so no one confuses them with submission-ready exports.

Examples help teams align quickly:

The key is separation. Working names should be descriptive. Final submission names may be simpler if the journal requires it. Keep both, and document the relationship.

Version control without chaos

Version numbers are where many teams lose control. Avoid words like final, final-final, final-revised, and actually-final. They feel helpful in the moment, but they age badly. Once a reviewer requests changes, every final file becomes questionable.

Use v01, v02, v03, and continue upward. Never restart version numbers after submission. If a revision changes Figure 4, the next file might be project_fig04_model-summary_v07_revised.tif. That tells the team it follows v06, not a new parallel branch.

Use status labels sparingly. Draft means still in active work. Review means ready for coauthor or PI review. Approved means the figure content, layout, labels, and legend have been checked. Submitted means it was uploaded. Revised means it responds to reviewer or editor requests.

One practical rule helps: only one person should change a file to approved or submitted. That person may be the corresponding author, project manager, senior analyst, or figure lead. Shared responsibility sounds collaborative, but during submission it can create duplicate truth.

If every teammate can mark a file as final, your team has no final file. Approval needs an owner.

Folder organization that supports naming

File names matter, but folders carry context. A clean folder structure prevents long names from doing all the work. Keep your manuscript assets in a top-level folder with predictable subfolders.

A useful structure looks like this:

• 01_source-data: raw data exports, analysis outputs, and traceable inputs.
• 02_working-figures: editable figure files and draft composites.
• 03_review-exports: PDFs or PNGs shared for coauthor review.
• 04_approved: figure files approved for submission preparation.
• 05_submission-package: files renamed or formatted for the journal portal.
• 06_revision: reviewer response figures, revised exports, and tracked replacements.

This structure is not sacred. Adjust it to your lab or department. The principle is more important than the exact folder names: separate source, working, review, approved, and submitted material.

Do not store approved exports beside early drafts if you can avoid it. Sorting by file name helps, but folder context reduces risk. When the submission deadline is close, you want the correct folder to feel boringly obvious.

Create a figure inventory before the final week

A figure inventory is a simple tracking table. It links the manuscript figure list to actual files. It also records status, owner, format, and notes. This one document can prevent hours of Slack messages, email searches, and unnecessary re-exports.

Your inventory can live in a spreadsheet, project management tool, or shared document. Keep it simple enough that people will use it. Add one row for each main figure, supplemental figure, graphical abstract, scheme, video, and source data file if required.

Recommended columns include:

• Manuscript figure label
• Current file name
• Folder location
• Editable source file
• Export format
• Resolution or dimensions
• Legend status
• Owner
• Approval status
• Journal upload name

This table becomes especially valuable during revision. If a reviewer asks for a new panel in Figure 3, you can update one row, note the replacement file, and keep the audit trail intact. Your figure file naming conventions and inventory should support each other.

Handling revisions and reviewer responses

Revisions introduce a second layer of confusion. The manuscript may still call something Figure 2, but the internal figure has changed three times. New supplemental figures may appear. Old panels may move or disappear. A naming system should make those changes visible.

For revised files, keep the original figure number if the manuscript still uses it. Update the version number and status. If a figure is renumbered, do not silently rename everything without a note. Add a mapping table in the inventory, such as old Figure 4 is now Figure 3.

Use a revision folder for each round, such as revision-r1 or revision-r2. Inside that folder, keep only files relevant to that round. This reduces the chance that a prior response file gets uploaded again.

If your team creates figures with AI-assisted design tools, export naming still matters. When you create with Graffiy, keep the exported files aligned with the same project, figure, version, and status pattern. The tool can speed up visual production, but your naming discipline keeps the submission package reliable.

Common mistakes to remove from your workflow

Some habits seem harmless until the journal deadline arrives. The first is using personal desktop folders as the source of truth. If the only approved Figure 5 lives on one laptop, the team is vulnerable. Use a shared location with permissions and backup.

The second mistake is naming files by date alone. A date can be helpful, but fig03_2025-02-14.tif does not tell you content, status, or version. If you use dates, place them after the core naming fields, not before them.

The third mistake is exporting multiple formats with identical names into one folder. A PDF, TIFF, and PNG may look similar in a file list. Add format purpose when needed, such as review-pdf or submission-tif.

The fourth mistake is changing labels inside the figure without updating the file name or inventory. If panel B becomes panel C, the corresponding panel file should reflect that. Otherwise, a coauthor may review the wrong version.

Finally, never assume the corresponding author will catch every mismatch. Submission portals are tiring. They ask for files, metadata, cover letters, declarations, and suggested reviewers. Your system should reduce the number of decisions required at upload time.

A practical standard operating procedure for your team

Here is a compact procedure you can adopt and adjust. First, choose your naming pattern at project kickoff, not at submission. Second, add it to a shared readme file in the manuscript folder. Third, assign a figure owner for each major figure.

Next, require version numbers for every exported figure. Draft files can move quickly, but they still need v01, v02, and v03. Then, use review exports for comments and reserve approved for files that have passed content, design, and legend checks.

Before submission, create a fresh submission package folder. Copy approved files into it. Rename those copies only if the journal requires a different format. Keep a mapping in the figure inventory so everyone knows which internal file became which uploaded file.

After submission, freeze the submitted package. Do not edit files inside it. If reviewers request changes, create a revision folder and continue version numbers from the last approved files. This gives your team a clean record of what changed and when.

These steps are not glamorous, but they work. Strong figure file naming conventions make the final submission less dependent on memory, luck, or one exhausted teammate. They also make revisions calmer, because the team can see exactly what was submitted and what needs to change.

Submission-ready checklist

Use this checklist before uploading figures to a journal portal. It is short on purpose. If the answer to any item is no, fix it before you start the portal session.

1. Every figure file has a project code, figure number, version, and status.
2. Main and supplemental figures use different labels.
3. Editable source files are clearly marked and kept outside the submission package.
4. Approved exports are separated from drafts.
5. The figure inventory lists the current file name and upload name.
6. Formats, resolution, and dimensions match the journal requirements.
7. Figure legends match the final figure numbering and panel labels.
8. The submitted package is frozen after upload.

When research teams use figure file naming conventions consistently, the payoff is immediate. People stop asking which file is correct. Reviewers get cleaner responses. The corresponding author can upload with confidence. That is the kind of workflow improvement worth standardizing.