When used well, images and tables reduce cognitive load, clarify theory, and strengthen credibility.
In academic writing, images and tables occupy an uneasy position. Authors are encouraged to “use figures to clarify,” yet reviewers routinely criticise visuals as confusing, unnecessary, or methodologically weak. The issue is not whether images and tables belong in academic work—they do—but how they function epistemically.
In high-quality journal articles, visuals are not supplements to the text. They are arguments rendered spatially. When used well, they reduce cognitive load, clarify theory, and strengthen credibility. When used poorly, they distract, obscure, and erode reviewer confidence.
Reviewers often read tables and figures before reading the paper linearly. Visuals are treated as tests of analytical competence:
Because visuals concentrate meaning, they amplify both clarity and error (Tufte, 2001).
Tables are best suited to:
A strong academic table does not merely list information; it organises analytical relationships in a way that prose cannot do efficiently (American Psychological Association, 2020).
Figures—models, diagrams, and conceptual frameworks—serve a different function. They are most effective when they:
In theory-led journals, figures often carry disproportionate interpretive weight.
Visuals should simplify complexity, not add to it. If a table or figure requires extensive explanation to be understood, it is likely overdesigned or under-conceptualised.
One of the most common reviewer complaints is redundancy. If a table simply repeats what the text already explains in full, it offers no analytical value (Day and Gastel, 2012).
Reviewers expect:
Deviation from convention is rarely seen as innovation; it is read as inexperience.
Bold colours, heavy gridlines, icons, and decorative elements are common in professional reports—but they violate academic norms. Scholarly visuals prioritise legibility and restraint (Tufte, 2001).
Every table and figure should be:
Unreferenced visuals are a red flag for reviewers, suggesting weak integration into the argument.
Captions should describe what the visual shows, not explain what it means. Interpretation belongs in the main text, where it can be contextualised and defended (APA, 2020).
In conceptual papers, visuals often serve as:
In such cases, a single well-designed figure can anchor the entire contribution.
Excessive tables and figures dilute their impact. Reviewers may interpret this as:
Fewer, higher-quality visuals are almost always preferable.
Reviewers operate under increasing time pressure. Well-designed visuals:
Poor visuals, by contrast, increase cognitive friction—often leading reviewers to disengage before the argument has fully unfolded.
In this sense, images and tables are not neutral. They actively shape the affective and cognitive conditions of peer review.
Images and tables are among the most powerful—and most risky—elements of an academic manuscript. Used with discipline, they enhance clarity, credibility, and contribution. Used carelessly, they undermine all three.
For authors seeking publication in competitive journals, the question is not whether to include visuals, but whether those visuals genuinely advance the argument.
American Psychological Association (2020) Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. 7th edn. Washington, DC: APA.
Day, R.A. and Gastel, B. (2012) How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper. 7th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tufte, E.R. (2001) The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. 2nd edn. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
.png)
