To be protected from biological threats, plants have evolved an immune system comprising constitutive and inducible defenses. For example, upon perception of certain stimuli, plants can develop a conditioned state of enhanced defensive capacity against upcoming pathogens and pests, resulting in a phenotype called 'induced resistance' (IR). To tackle the confusing lexicon currently used in the IR field, we propose a widely applicable code of practice concerning the terminology and description of IR phenotypes using two main phenotypical aspects: local versus systemic resistance, and direct versus primed defense responses. Our general framework aims to improve uniformity and consistency in future scientific communication, which should help to avoid further misinterpretations and facilitate the accessibility and impact of this research field. Upon perception of certain stimuli, plants can develop a conditioned state of enhanced defensive capacity against upcoming pathogens and pests, resulting in a phenotype called 'induced resistance' (IR). Scientific communication in the IR research domain is flawed with inconsistent use of various conceptualizations and terms. Researchers working on non-model organisms and/or less-studied plant tissues – which often make use of distinct natural defense mechanisms – are struggling to choose the correct term for their observations. Different biological and chemical IR stimuli tend to induce resistance through various pathways and hence terminology can and should not be linked to underlying mechanisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]