<p>I agree with your supervisor: If your paper is going to a peer-reviewed journal, you should cite peer-reviewed material. I also agree with you that the NASA version is clearer than the original figure, but if you're only going to <em>refer</em> to the image — i.e. not show a reproduction — I'm sure the reader can figure it out.</p>

<p>Alternatively, you could create your own (color) version with the annotations that are relevant for your work, and then write something like "…based on the schematic diagram of <a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995PASP..107..803U" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Urry &amp; Padovani (1995)</a>".</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-12T07:52:46.243Z
It's only for my MSc thesis, not a peer-reviewed journal.
Jim421616
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-12T10:56:35.827Z
@Jim421616 Okay, in that case I think perhaps it's even more important to do as your supervisor says, if nothing else then to make him/her happy :)
pela
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-12T10:59:48.643Z
But seriously, I tend to think that the style of a thesis should reflect the style of papers used in your field. It'll look more professional and give the spa/examiner/reader the impression of you knowing your field.
pela
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-16T20:30:07.830Z
*not "spa", but _spv_, i.e. supervisor.
pela
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-05T16:17:27.663Z
2019-03-05T16:17:27.663Z
pela
<p>In a paper I'm writing, I've referenced an image I got from the NASA site at <a href="https://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/eteu/agn/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/eteu/agn/</a> regarding the Unified Model of AGN. I captioned it</p>

<pre><code>The AGN unified model, showing the BLR and NLR, as well as different types
based on the observational angle. Credit: Fermi and NASA: 
https://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/eteu/agn/
</code></pre>

<p>but my supervisor said that I should use proper referencing (I see that the image seems to be derived from <a href="http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1995PASP..107..803U&amp;data_type=PDF_HIGH&amp;whole_paper=YES&amp;type=PRINTER&amp;filetype=.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this paper</a>). The image from the NASA site is much clearer and easier to understand, and I'd much rather use it for clarity's sake.</p>

<p>What's the proper way to reference an image like this, which is derived from a paper?</p>

<p>Maybe I should just use the original image?</p>

<p>Or does anyone know of a better quality one from another paper, similar to the one from the NASA site?</p>

<p>EDIT: I should mention that this is a follow-up question to one I posted <a href="https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/125372/properly-citing-an-image-from-a-website">here</a>.</p>

<active-galaxy><resource-request>
An image for the unified model of AGN
Jim421616
# An image for the unified model of AGN

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-03-05)

In a paper I'm writing, I've referenced an image I got from the NASA site at https://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/eteu/agn/ regarding the Unified Model of AGN. I captioned it
The AGN unified model, showing the BLR and NLR, as well as different types
based on the observational angle. Credit: Fermi and NASA: 
https://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/eteu/agn/

but my supervisor said that I should use proper referencing (I see that the image seems to be derived from this paper). The image from the NASA site is much clearer and easier to understand, and I'd much rather use it for clarity's sake.
What's the proper way to reference an image like this, which is derived from a paper?
Maybe I should just use the original image?
Or does anyone know of a better quality one from another paper, similar to the one from the NASA site?
EDIT: I should mention that this is a follow-up question to one I posted here.

**Tags:** active-galaxy, resource-request


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2019-03-05. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

I agree with your supervisor: If your paper is going to a peer-reviewed journal, you should cite peer-reviewed material. I also agree with you that the NASA version is clearer than the original figure, but if you're only going to *refer* to the image — i.e. not show a reproduction — I'm sure the reader can figure it out.

Alternatively, you could create your own (color) version with the annotations that are relevant for your work, and then write something like "…based on the schematic diagram of [Urry & Padovani (1995)](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995PASP..107..803U)".

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: It's only for my MSc thesis, not a peer-reviewed journal.  
> **username_1**: @username_0 Okay, in that case I think perhaps it's even more important to do as your supervisor says, if nothing else then to make him/her happy :)  
> **username_1**: But seriously, I tend to think that the style of a thesis should reflect the style of papers used in your field. It'll look more professional and give the spa/examiner/reader the impression of you knowing your field.  
> **username_1**: *not "spa", but _spv_, i.e. supervisor.  

---

