u/IMPSTR-syndrome

Hello everyone, I'm writing a paper for a conference and I'd like to use a figure from a review paper I'm basing my idea on. Specifically, fig 3. from this one: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.08863

I'm of course going to cite it as [1] and reference their findings multiple times. Since my study is on the 6 devices shown in the figure, I'd like to add it as a visual aid for the reader. If I do so, I'm of course planning to give full credit in the caption in a direct manner. I am not sure however if I'm allowed to even do that since this paper (in another form) is published in another journal.

If I'm not allowed to take the figure as is, I'll just recreate the devices using a mix of blender and some CAD software and maybe I'll add that it's inspired by [1].

I genuinely need your opinions on this, the journal paper is not open access and it's published by APS https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.95.025003

Thanks in advance.

Dear fellow academics, I understand the need to promote our work, it’s essential for a multitude of reasons.
Dear fellow engineers, I understand the importance of highlighting specific papers that might impact the industry.
LinkedIn definitely has some users that might be interested in implementing our research or collaborating on industry solutions.

That said, I violently despise those corporate, plastic, clearly AI-generated useless shitposts on LinkedIn about profound scientific breakthroughs that people supposedly have. Those are rarely however in preprints and never in actual journals or conferences that withstand the scrutiny of peer review.

I’ve been advised that commenting anything negative on LinkedIn might severely hurt my image and lower my future chances of employment via the platform but I cannot take it anymore. These posts incite a visceral reaction to me.

For context my field is Quantum Computing but I do not believe this phenomenon is field specific.

That’s all, just wanted to rant somewhere, thanks for your understanding.