Before revision:  Adequate record-keeping and quality control are therefore essential to ensure experimental rigor and datafidelity, to allow experiments to be reproducibly repeatedand to promote the proper evaluation, interpretation, comparison and re-use of the results. Microscopy images must be accompanied by complete descriptions of experimental procedures , biological samples, microscope hardware specifications, image acquisition parameters, and metrics detailing instrument performance and calibration. Despite considerable effort (Goldberg et al., 2005; Linkert et al., 2010), however, universal data standards and reporting guidelines for the fair (Wilkinson et al. , 2016) assessment and comparison of microscopy data have not been established. To understand this discrepancy and propose a way forward, we examine the benefits, pitfalls, and limitations of shared standards for fluorescence microscopy .
After revision:  Adequate record-keeping and quality control are therefore essential to ensure experimental rigor and datafidelity, to allow experiments to be reproducibly repeatedand to promote the proper evaluation, interpretation, comparison and re-use of the 4DN Imaging Standards Working Group has put forth a tiered system of microscopy calibration and metadata standards for images obtained through fluorescence microscopy. The proposal is an extension of the OME data model and aims at increasing data fidelity, ease future analysis, and facilitate objective comparison of different datasets, experimental setups, and essays .