z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
A guide to accurate reporting in digital image acquisition – can anyone replicate your microscopy data?
Author(s) -
John M. Heddleston,
Jesse Aaron,
Satya Khuon,
TengLeong Chew
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of cell science
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.384
H-Index - 278
eISSN - 1477-9137
pISSN - 0021-9533
DOI - 10.1242/jcs.254144
Subject(s) - replicate , data science , biology , quality (philosophy) , engineering ethics , computer science , epistemology , philosophy , statistics , mathematics , engineering
Recent technological advances have made microscopy indispensable in life science research. Its ubiquitous use, in turn, underscores the importance of ensuring that microscopy-based experiments are replicable and that the resulting data comparable. While there has been a wealth of review articles, practical guides and conferences devoted to the topic of maintaining standard instrument operating conditions, the paucity of attention dedicated to properly documenting microscopy experiments is undeniable. This lack of emphasis on accurate reporting extends beyond life science researchers themselves, to the review panels and editorial boards of many journals. Such oversight at the final step of communicating a scientific discovery can unfortunately negate the many valiant efforts made to ensure experimental quality control in the name of scientific reproducibility. This Review aims to enumerate the various parameters that should be reported in an imaging experiment by illustrating how their inconsistent application can lead to irreconcilable results.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom