Contents
Academy · Concepts & Definitions · Figures that passed and failed production
Figures That Passed Review and Failed Production: One Figure at Two Resolutions and the Underlying Fault
A figure that appears acceptable at review resolution may still fail at production. This example illustrates such a failure and identifies the specific fault responsible.
This worked example describes the same figure submitted at two resolutions: a lower-resolution version accepted at the initial peer-review stage, and a production-resolution version that failed the publisher’s technical check. It identifies the specific, verifiable fault responsible for the difference.
Learning objectives
- Why a figure may pass review but fail production.
- The technical fault that most commonly underlies this discrepancy.
- How figures can be checked against this fault before final submission.
Common misconceptions
- “A figure accepted during peer review will necessarily be acceptable at production.” Many journals accept lower-resolution figures during review in order to keep file sizes manageable for reviewers, and then apply a stricter final technical check at production; passing the first check does not indicate that a figure will pass the second.
The version submitted at review resolution
Illustrative example: a line graph submitted at approximately 150 dots per inch (DPI), which met the journal’s review-stage requirements and appeared sharp in the preview of the online review system, where it was displayed at a reduced screen size.
Failure of the production-resolution check
At production, the same file was flagged: when scaled to the actual final print width of the figure (specified by the journal’s page layout), the 150 DPI resolution fell below the journal’s stated 300 DPI minimum for line art, resulting in visibly soft or pixelated axis labels and lines when printed or viewed at full production size.
Identification of the specific fault
The fault in this case is resolution checked at the wrong size: 150 DPI may appear acceptable in a small on-screen preview but is insufficient once the figure is scaled to its actual final print dimensions. The resolution itself did not change between review and production; the size at which it was assessed did.
Checking figures against this fault
Before final submission, resolution should be checked at the intended final print size of the figure (not the preview size of the review system), against the minimum DPI stated by the journal for the relevant figure type (line art typically requires a higher DPI than photographic images). This single check identifies the fault illustrated in this example before the figure reaches production.
Key points
Key points
A figure may pass peer review and still fail production because review systems often display figures at a reduced preview size. This masks a resolution shortfall that becomes evident only when the figure is checked at its final print size against the stricter production-stage minimum of the journal.
Practical application
Practical application
- Resolution should be checked at the intended final print size of the figure rather than at the preview size of the review system. This is the specific discrepancy that this example demonstrates.
- The minimum resolution in dots per inch (DPI) stated by the journal for the specific figure type should be confirmed. Line art commonly requires a higher minimum than photographic images.
- Acceptance at the review stage should not be treated as an indication that the figure will pass production. Many journals apply separate and stricter checks at each stage.
Frequently asked questions
Usually yes, through the proof-correction process, but this introduces a production delay that checking before submission avoids.
No; resaving changes the stated resolution metadata of the file but does not add pixel detail that was never captured. The image must be sourced or regenerated at a genuinely higher resolution.
It is a common convention but not a universal one; the current minimum stated by the specific journal for the relevant figure type should always be confirmed.
References
- Based on current major-publisher author guidelines for figure preparation (Elsevier Author Resources; Wiley Author Services), applied as general best practice. read 10 October 2026.
Every source above is a peer-reviewed article, a publisher’s record of one, or a standard issued by the body that owns it. Each carries the date it was last read. Where a standard moves, this article is revised rather than left up with a note.
How to cite this article
Pick your referencing style and copy it. Your university or target journal may vary the punctuation — check its guide if it has one.
Pubrica Academy. (2026, October 10). Figures That Passed Review and Failed Production: One Figure at Two Resolutions and the Underlying Fault. Pubrica. https://pubrica.com/academy/examples/figures-passed-and-failed-production-example/
Pubrica Academy. “Figures That Passed Review and Failed Production: One Figure at Two Resolutions and the Underlying Fault.” Pubrica, 10 Oct. 2026, pubrica.com/academy/examples/figures-passed-and-failed-production-example/.
Pubrica Academy (2026) Figures That Passed Review and Failed Production: One Figure at Two Resolutions and the Underlying Fault. Pubrica. Available at: https://pubrica.com/academy/examples/figures-passed-and-failed-production-example/ (Accessed: 15 October 2026).
Pubrica Academy. “Figures That Passed Review and Failed Production: One Figure at Two Resolutions and the Underlying Fault.” Pubrica. October 10, 2026. https://pubrica.com/academy/examples/figures-passed-and-failed-production-example/
Pubrica Academy, ‘Figures That Passed Review and Failed Production: One Figure at Two Resolutions and the Underlying Fault’ (Pubrica, 10 October 2026) <https://pubrica.com/academy/examples/figures-passed-and-failed-production-example/> accessed 15 October 2026.
Pubrica Academy. Figures That Passed Review and Failed Production: One Figure at Two Resolutions and the Underlying Fault. [Internet]. Pubrica; 2026 Oct 10 [cited 2026 Oct 15]. Available from: https://pubrica.com/academy/examples/figures-passed-and-failed-production-example/
Pubrica Academy, “Figures That Passed Review and Failed Production: One Figure at Two Resolutions and the Underlying Fault,” Pubrica, Oct. 10, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://pubrica.com/academy/examples/figures-passed-and-failed-production-example/
@misc{figures_passed_and_failed_production_example_2026,
author = {{Pubrica Academy}},
title = {Figures That Passed Review and Failed Production: One Figure at Two Resolutions and the Underlying Fault},
howpublished = {Pubrica},
year = {2026},
month = {oct},
url = {https://pubrica.com/academy/examples/figures-passed-and-failed-production-example/},
note = {Accessed: <span data-cite-acc="iso">2026-10-15</span>}
}This article is written to be learned from. Cite it if you are referring to what it says; if you are using the evidence behind it, cite the sources listed above instead.
Resolution fault-check
This check should be applied to each figure before final submission.
Figure's actual intended final print width: ___ Resolution at that final print size (not preview size): ___ DPI Journal's stated minimum DPI for this figure type: ___ Passes? ___
Pubrica AcademyWritten and maintained by Pubrica’s subject matter experts. Articles are revised when the underlying standards change, and each article states the date on which it was last reviewed.
How Pubrica can help
Pubrica checks the resolution of each figure at its final print size against the production requirements of the target journal before submission, rather than after a production query.