Drawing it yourself does not make every element original
A figure can be technically drawn by you while communicating someone else’s intellectual contribution. A bar chart made from published statistics is your visualisation but not your dataset. A newly drawn version of a recognised conceptual model remains adapted in substance. Conversely, a schematic that expresses a structure you developed from your own analysis may genuinely be original.
Separate three layers before writing the caption. Where did the proposition or data come from? Where did the particular visual structure come from? Who controls rights in any embedded photographs, maps, icons or illustrations? A caption can only be accurate after these questions have been answered.
When “Author’s own figure” is sufficient
The description is appropriate when the concept, selection, data and visual arrangement arise from your work. Examples include a diagram of your study procedure, a chart produced from your own survey, or a typology developed through your analysis. The surrounding text should still explain the method. Calling something your own figure does not replace a description of the sample, calculations or categories.
University conventions differ. Some departments ask students to label every self-produced figure; others regard that statement as unnecessary. Consult the binding style guide and apply its form consistently. Do not alternate among “own work”, “author’s figure” and no attribution without a deliberate reason.
Make external data and models visible
If you plot published values yourself, a transparent caption might read “Author’s visualisation based on data from …”. Cite the full dataset or report in the reference list or data bibliography. For an adapted model, identify the original beside the figure, then explain in the text what you retained, removed, added or rearranged.
Cosmetic changes do not erase provenance. New colours, fonts and arrows do not turn a borrowed conceptual structure into your own idea. Equally, commonplace visual grammar—such as an ordinary pair of axes—does not need attribution to a random example you happened to see. The relevant question is whether you carried over a specific intellectual, data-based or creative contribution.
Citation and permission answer different questions
A scholarly citation tells readers where material came from. Copyright and licensing determine whether and how it may be reused. A meticulous reference is not automatically permission. For photographs, illustrations, maps and distinctive designs, examine the licence, a statutory exception or explicit consent. Legal tests depend on jurisdiction, purpose and the extent of reproduction.
A licence may require a creator name, source link, licence notice, indication of changes or sharing under the same terms. Save evidence of the terms displayed when you obtained the work. If the situation is uncertain, contact your library, research office or qualified legal adviser. This page supplies a documentation workflow, not legal advice for an individual case.
Caption patterns that disclose the real contribution
- Entirely original: “Figure 3. Procedure used in this study. Author’s own figure.”
- Your data: “Figure 4. Distribution of responses. Author’s visualisation of study data.”
- External data: “Figure 5. Development of … Author’s visualisation based on [creator, year, dataset].”
- Adapted model: “Figure 6. Extended process model. Adapted from [source, page], with changes described in the text.”
- Direct reproduction: “Figure 7. [Title]. Reproduced from [full source] under [licence or permission].”
Do not choose a phrase that minimises another person’s part. If the layout comes from a published original, use the dedicated guide to labelling an adapted figure.
Reconcile the evidence before submission
Match the number, title and source across the figure, list of figures and bibliography. Explain every abbreviation and axis. Keep the licence page, permission email or other rights evidence in the project records. Finally, read the caption away from its surrounding paragraph: a reviewer should still understand what is shown, what you contributed and where external material originated.