Images are very important in the composition of a paper, being complementary to the written and mathematical languages. The reason for mentioning this is that regardless the good quality of most of the received manuscripts, the images are often a weak point in some submissions. Authors misunderstandings of the requirements for good images in the final publication results in publishing delays, and that is one reason for writing this sort of clarification. The most common problem with these images is resolution, a term that is often used nowadays for all kind of devices and gadgets with a screen or display. Even though this Journal states “high resolution” (1800 x 1800 true dots), it is often interpreted as “that looks nice”. Looking nice on the screen is different than its appearance in print, and if the discussion in a paper references something in picture, that something must be clearly recognizable. In our case the resolution problem comes with technology. In the past pictures were not a problem because, for instance, a 35 mm film has an analog equivalence of 20 Megapixels. In terms of resolution, the publisher had at his disposition images far better than what was necessary. But, if resolution is not how nice the picture looks, then what is it? The resolution of an image could be defined as the closest details that can be individually recognized. This property is related to the number of dots (pixels) that can be accommodated in a given area; the most are the better. Then, if an author submits an image that is 600 dpi (dots per inch) and the image size is only 1 inch, then there are only 600 dots of information in that line. But if this image is enlarged to 6 inches, the number of pixels remains the same, so expanding the image causes distortion that occurs when there are too few pixels (pixelating), i.e. not enough for displaying a recognizable picture. In the case of JMPEE, any combination of dpi times length, and height, of the image equaling 1800 or little greater is acceptable (i.e. 300 dpi X 6 inches length, and 6 inches height). A lot more is also good, but redundant; it would be beyond the limit of the printing shops and greater than the resolution of the human eye. While it is common to enhance low-resolution images by using sophisticated interpolation algorithms to create the information for the intermediate non-existent pixels, the results are questionable for many pictures in materials science and engineering. Note in the following pictures that the amount of dots of an image is a better indicator of quality of the image rather than the specification of 480 dpi. On the screen it could look acceptable,

中文翻译：

---

编者的话

图像在论文的构成中非常重要，是对书面和数学语言的补充。提到这一点的原因是，尽管大多数收到的稿件质量很好，但图像往往是一些提交中的弱点。作者对最终出版物中对良好图像的要求的误解导致了出版延迟，这也是撰写此类澄清的一个原因。这些图像最常见的问题是分辨率，这个术语现在经常用于各种带有屏幕或显示器的设备和小工具。尽管本期刊声明为“高分辨率”（1800 x 1800 真点），但它通常被解释为“看起来不错”。在屏幕上看起来不错与在印刷中的外观不同，如果论文中的讨论引用了图片中的某些内容，则该内容必须清晰可辨。在我们的案例中，分辨率问题来自技术。在过去，图片不是问题，因为例如，35 毫米胶片的模拟等效值为 20 兆像素。在分辨率方面，出版商所拥有的图像远比必要的好。但是，如果分辨率不是图片看起来有多好，那么它是什么？图像的分辨率可以定义为可以单独识别的最接近的细节。此属性与给定区域内可容纳的点数（像素）有关；越多越好。然后，如果作者提交的图像为 600 dpi（每英寸点数）且图像大小仅为 1 英寸，则该行中只有 600 个点的信息。但是，如果将此图像放大到 6 英寸，像素数保持不变，因此扩展图像会导致在像素太少（像素化）时发生失真，即不足以显示可识别的图片。在 JMPEE 的情况下，图像的 dpi 乘以长度和高度的任意组合等于或大于 1800 都是可以接受的（即 300 dpi X 6 英寸长和 6 英寸高）。更多也很好，但多余；它将超出印刷厂的极限，并大于人眼的分辨率。虽然通过使用复杂的插值算法为中间不存在的像素创建信息来增强低分辨率图像是很常见的，但对于材料科学和工程中的许多图片来说，结果是有问题的。请注意，在以下图片中，图像的点数比 480 dpi 的规格更能反映图像的质量。在屏幕上看起来可以接受，