How to Respond to reviewer comments about figures
In This Article
Reviewer comments about figures often look small on the page, but they can decide whether a revision feels careful or rushed. A reviewer may ask for clearer labels, additional controls, better resolution, a new panel, or a different visual summary. Your job is not only to edit the figure. You also need to show the editor that you understood the concern, made a precise change, and protected the integrity of the data.
This guide gives you a practical way to translate figure feedback into concrete edits, response language, and final quality checks. We will cover common comment types, how to revise without overpromising, and how to write replies that sound confident rather than defensive.
Why reviewer comments about figures matter so much
Figures carry a large share of your argument. Many readers scan the abstract, then the figures, then decide whether the paper deserves closer reading. Reviewers do the same, even when they read carefully. If a figure is hard to interpret, the manuscript feels less trustworthy.
Reviewer comments about figures usually signal one of four issues: clarity, completeness, accuracy, or presentation quality. Clarity means the viewer cannot quickly understand what is being shown. Completeness means a panel, control, statistic, scale bar, or legend detail is missing. Accuracy means the visual does not match the text, methods, or raw data. Presentation quality means the figure may be correct, but it is not publication ready.
Do not treat every figure comment as cosmetic. A request for a larger font might seem minor, but it can hide a deeper issue: the data hierarchy is unclear. A request for a representative image may be about transparency. A request for raw values behind a graph may be about reproducibility.
That said, you do not need to accept every suggested visualization. Reviewers can recommend plots that do not fit the data. Your response can acknowledge the concern and offer a better solution. The strongest replies are respectful, specific, and anchored in what changed.
Start by classifying the figure comment
Before opening your graphics software, sort each comment into a category. This helps you avoid random edits and gives your response letter a clean structure. It also helps coauthors divide work without duplicating effort.
| Reviewer concern | What it often means | Typical figure edit |
|---|---|---|
| “The labels are hard to read.” | The visual hierarchy is weak. | Increase font size, simplify labels, improve contrast. |
| “Please show individual data points.” | The summary hides variability. | Add dot plots, jittered points, or paired lines. |
| “The image needs a scale bar.” | The visual lacks spatial context. | Add scale bar and define it in the legend. |
| “Panel B is not described.” | The legend and text are incomplete. | Revise legend and cite the panel in results. |
| “The colors are confusing.” | The encoding is not accessible. | Use colorblind aware palettes and direct labels. |
Once you classify the issue, write the revision task as an action. For example, change “Figure 2 unclear” to “Increase axis label size, replace abbreviations, add treatment definitions to legend, and cite panel 2C in Results paragraph three.” Specific tasks reduce friction.
For complex reviewer comments about figures, create a mini checklist for each figure. Include the figure number, reviewer number, requested change, owner, file name, and status. This sounds basic, but it prevents the classic resubmission mistake: revising the figure but forgetting to update the legend or response letter.
Translate common comments into concrete edits
Many figure comments repeat across disciplines. The wording changes, but the requested fix is familiar. Below are common patterns and how to respond through the figure, the manuscript, and the rebuttal letter.
When the reviewer says the figure is unclear
“Unclear” is broad, so you need to diagnose the source. Check whether the problem is font size, panel order, crowded annotations, missing definitions, low contrast, or a legend that forces the reader to hunt for meaning. Do not simply increase resolution and hope the concern disappears.
A strong edit might include larger labels, fewer competing colors, direct annotations, and a clearer legend. If the figure compares groups, make the group names match the terms used in the manuscript. If you use abbreviations, define them in the legend even if they appear in the main text.
Response language: “We thank the reviewer for noting that Figure 2 was difficult to interpret. We revised the figure by increasing axis and panel label sizes, replacing abbreviated group names with full labels, and adding definitions for all symbols in the legend.”
When the reviewer asks for more data in the figure
This comment often appears as “show all data points,” “include controls,” or “add quantification.” First, decide whether the requested data are already available and appropriate for the main figure. If yes, add them. If the data are useful but secondary, consider a supplementary figure.
Be careful with crowded panels. Adding every requested element can make the figure less readable. You can use an additional panel, split a panel, or move supporting material to supplementary data while making the main conclusion clearer.
Response language: “We agree that the distribution of the individual measurements is important. We revised Figure 3C to show individual data points overlaid on the summary statistics and added the number of biological replicates to the legend.”
When the reviewer questions image quality or integrity
Image comments deserve special care. Reviewers may ask for higher resolution, uncropped images, brightness adjustments, or representative examples. Keep all original image files and document any processing. If you adjust brightness or contrast, apply the same adjustment across comparable images unless you clearly justify otherwise.
The Office of Research Integrity guidance on scientific digital images is a useful reference for responsible image handling. Your journal may also have stricter rules, so check author instructions before resubmission.
Response language: “We have replaced the previous image with a higher resolution version generated from the original file. We also added an uncropped image to Supplementary Figure S2 and clarified in the Methods that identical contrast settings were applied across compared images.”
When the reviewer asks for a different plot type
Sometimes reviewers request a bar chart, box plot, heat map, schematic, or model diagram. Ask what problem they are trying to solve. If the issue is variability, a bar chart may be worse than your current plot. If the issue is mechanism, a schematic may help more than another data panel.
You can accept the spirit of the request without copying the exact suggestion. For example, if a reviewer asks for a bar graph but your data are paired, a paired dot plot is often more informative. Explain the choice briefly and politely.
Response language: “We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to improve visualization of the group differences. Because the measurements are paired within donors, we revised Figure 4D as a paired dot plot rather than a bar graph, which better preserves the structure of the data.”
Write response language that is specific and calm
Good response letters do not dramatize the revision. They state what changed, where it changed, and why it answers the concern. For reviewer comments about figures, always mention the figure number and, when useful, the panel number. Editors should not have to search for the edit.
Use a three part structure: thanks, action, location. The thanks should be brief. The action should be concrete. The location should point to the revised figure, legend, methods, results, or supplement.
“We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. We revised Figure 1B by increasing label size, adding the missing scale bar, and defining the staining markers in the legend. The revised legend now appears on page 8.”
When you disagree, keep the same structure but add a reason. Do not write, “We disagree.” Write, “We understand the concern; however, we retained the current format because...” Then offer a compensating edit if possible.
“We understand the reviewer’s concern that the comparison should be easier to see. We retained the log scale because the measurements span three orders of magnitude, but we added individual data points and a clearer axis label to improve interpretation.”
Avoid vague replies such as “Figure revised” or “Done.” They make the editor work too hard. Also avoid defensive explanations about time, software, or reviewer misunderstanding. The response letter is not a diary. It is a record of scientific revision.
Use a figure revision workflow before editing files
Open the manuscript, response letter, figure files, legends, and journal instructions together. Then create a single revision map. Figure work becomes risky when edits happen in isolation. A beautiful revised panel can still fail if the legend, methods, and results text remain outdated.
Start with the highest impact comments. If a reviewer asks for a new analysis panel, complete that before polishing typography. Adding a new panel can change layout, panel letters, figure citations, and legend order. Save cosmetic refinements for the end.
Use versioned file names that humans can understand. For example, “Fig2_revision_R1_2026-02-14.ai” is better than “final_final2.ai.” Keep editable source files, exported high resolution files, and a PDF proof. If several coauthors touch figures, assign one person to final consistency checks.
If you want to rebuild a clean schematic, graphical abstract, or figure layout without starting from a blank canvas, you can create with Graffiy and keep the visual logic aligned with your manuscript. We built Graffiy for scientists who need publication ready designs without turning figure revision into a second research project.
Quality checks before resubmission
Before you send the revision, inspect every figure as if you were the reviewer. Print the PDF or view it at the size readers will see. Many figure problems only appear after export, compression, or journal PDF conversion.
- Readability: Can you read every axis, label, inset, and annotation without zooming excessively?
- Consistency: Are fonts, colors, line weights, group names, and panel labels consistent across figures?
- Completeness: Does every panel have a legend explanation, units, sample size, and statistical notation where needed?
- Accuracy: Do plotted values match the analysis output and manuscript text?
- Accessibility: Are color choices interpretable for readers with color vision deficiencies?
- File quality: Do exported files meet journal resolution, format, and size requirements?
Check panel letters after every layout change. If you add a new panel B, all later panel references may shift. Search the manuscript for “Figure,” “Fig,” and panel letters. Then check the response letter against the final files.
For reviewer comments about figures involving statistics, verify that the figure and methods use the same test names. If the figure shows confidence intervals, do not call them standard error in the legend. If p values are adjusted for multiple comparisons, say so consistently.
For image based figures, compare the final export against the original data. Confirm scale bars, magnification, crop boundaries, and channel labels. If the journal requests raw data or uncropped blots, make sure file names and legends are easy to connect.
Examples of figure comment responses you can adapt
Use templates carefully. They should sound like your manuscript, not like a copied script. Still, examples help you find the right tone when reviewer comments about figures feel blunt or vague.
| Reviewer comment | Possible response |
|---|---|
| “Figure 1 is too crowded.” | “We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We split the original Figure 1 into revised Figures 1 and 2, enlarged the labels, and shortened the annotations to improve readability.” |
| “Please add quantification.” | “We agree that quantification strengthens the interpretation. We added a new panel, Figure 5E, showing quantification from four independent experiments and described the analysis in the Methods.” |
| “The color scheme is confusing.” | “We revised the color palette across Figures 2 and 3 and added direct labels to reduce reliance on the legend. The group colors are now consistent throughout the manuscript.” |
| “The representative image is not convincing.” | “We replaced the representative image with a clearer example from the same experiment and added uncropped source images in Supplementary Figure S4 for transparency.” |
When a reviewer asks for a figure that you cannot provide, explain the limitation plainly. Maybe the experiment was not designed to capture that endpoint. Maybe the raw image field does not include the requested region. Maybe the dataset is unavailable for ethical reasons.
Do not hide behind vague wording. Say what you can provide instead. For example: “Although we cannot retrospectively add live imaging for this cohort, we added endpoint quantification in revised Figure 6F and clarified this limitation in the Discussion.”
How to avoid new problems while fixing old ones
Every revision can create new errors. New panels can introduce inconsistent sample sizes. Redrawn schematics can imply mechanisms more strongly than your data support. Relabeled axes can drift away from the original analysis. Treat figure revision as scientific editing, not decoration.
Use the manuscript claim as your anchor. Ask, “What does this figure need to prove, and what should it not imply?” If a schematic shows a pathway, use cautious labels when the mechanism is proposed rather than demonstrated. If a graph shows association, do not draw arrows that imply causation.
Also watch for overcorrection. Reviewers may request more information, but a figure packed with labels, stars, boxes, and arrows becomes harder to trust. Prefer clean hierarchy. Put essential interpretation in the figure and legend. Put extended details in supplementary material or methods.
Final resubmission checklist for figure related comments
Before submitting, read each reviewer comment, then point to the exact change. If you cannot point to a figure, legend, method, supplement, or text change, your response may be incomplete. This is especially important for reviewer comments about figures because the edit often crosses several manuscript parts.
- Confirm that every figure comment appears in the response letter.
- Confirm that every promised figure edit appears in the final manuscript files.
- Check that revised figure numbers and panel letters match the text.
- Review legends for units, abbreviations, sample sizes, statistics, and scale bars.
- Export figures using the journal’s required format and resolution.
- Open the final PDF and inspect figures at publication size.
- Save source files, exported files, and raw data in an organized folder.
A strong response to figure feedback does not need to be long. It needs to be traceable. The reviewer should see the concern, the edit, and the improved figure without guessing. The editor should see that the manuscript is cleaner, clearer, and more reliable than the previous version.
Reviewer comments about figures can be frustrating because they often arrive late, after you thought the story was visually complete. But they are also a chance to make the paper easier to read and harder to misunderstand. Handle them with structure, be transparent about what changed, and let the revised figures do quiet, convincing work.
Frequently Asked Questions
How should I respond to reviewer comments about figures that are vague?
Start by identifying the likely issue: clarity, completeness, accuracy, or presentation quality. In your response, state the specific edit you made, such as enlarging labels, adding a scale bar, or revising the legend. If the comment remains ambiguous, make a reasonable improvement and explain it clearly.
Can I disagree with a reviewer who asks for a different figure format?
Yes, if you have a scientific or readability reason. Acknowledge the concern, explain why the requested format may not suit the data, and offer an alternative edit that solves the underlying problem. For example, a paired dot plot may be better than a bar chart for paired measurements.
What should I check before resubmitting revised figures?
Check readability, consistency, file quality, data accuracy, legends, panel letters, and figure citations in the manuscript. Make sure every promised edit in the response letter appears in the final files. Also confirm that image processing, scale bars, and statistical labels match the methods and raw data.
Written by
Shobajo AbdulAzeez
Tags
Share this article
