What\u00a0is Wrong with These Pictures?<\/h2>\n
Microbiologist Elisabeth Bik is the authority on image integrity in scientific publishing. In her 2016 expos\u00e9<\/a>, \u201cThe Prevalence of Inappropriate Image Duplication in Biomedical Research Publications,\u201d she acknowledges that \u201cinaccuracies in scientific papers have many causes,\u201d sloppiness is one among them. Some misrepresentations \u201cresult from honest mistakes\u00a0while others are intentional and constitute research misconduct, including situations in which data\u00a0is altered, omitted, manufactured or misrepresented in a way that fits the desired outcome.\u201d Bik assigned problematic images to five categories: simple duplication, duplication with repositioning, duplication with alteration, cuts, and beautification.<\/p>\n Cuts and beautification (the latter of which can assist readers afflicted by color blindness<\/a>) don\u2019t always constitute research misconduct. Duplication almost always does. Whether that misconduct is intentional or accidental, the experiments based on flawed findings are invalid and papers citing manipulated images must be retracted<\/a>. That\u2019s why the majority of the scientific community agrees that journal editors or peer reviewers have an important role in identifying data integrity issues before publication.<\/p>\n Yet even after the Hwang and Yin scandals, many such violations of image integrity are discovered by readers after publication, partly because discerning unethical image processing can be very difficult. As one\u00a0PubPeer commenter notes<\/a>, \u201cIt is so easy to cheat \u2026 without leaving traces …\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong>Many journals have implemented screening procedures, with the Journal of Cell Biology<\/em> (JCB<\/em>) and its then\u2013managing editor Mike Rossner leading the pack in 2002<\/a>.<\/p>\n Journals have struggled with the responsibility, though. As former Science<\/em> editor Donald Kennedy complained<\/a> in 2006, \u201cWe are … considering the kinds of special attention that might be given to … high-risk papers \u2026 [including] more intensive evaluation of the treatment of digital images … [But] the experience will be time-consuming and expensive for the journal and may lead to conflict with authors.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n We still lack a shared rulebook for image integrity. The Council of Science Editors (CSE) assigns responsibility to authors\u2014recommending that they disclose alterations even when data is not misrepresented\u2014and to journals, the CSE provides links to guidelines such as those of Rockefeller University Press. These guidelines prohibit enhancing, obscuring, moving, removing, or introducing any specific features within images but permit some adjustments to brightness, contrast, color, and groupings. However, neither the CSE nor the Office of Research Integrity<\/a> has implemented any universal, required standards for scientific publication of images.<\/p>\n Even some scientists are reluctant to accept strict guidelines on data integrity. In 2014, the Committee on Publication Ethics shared a concern<\/a> from the managing editor of a scientific journal: \u201cMany laboratories consider photographs as illustrations that can be manipulated, and not as original data. Thus gels are often cleaned of impurities, bands are cut out and photographs of plant material only serve to show what the authors want to demonstrate, and the material does not necessarily originate from the experiment in question.\u201d<\/p>\n The editor emphasized scientists\u2019 resistance to journals\u2019 attempts to protect against research misconduct in image processing: \u201cWhen the editor-in-chief rejected such a manuscript, a typical response was: I am surprised by the question and problem you pointed out in our manuscript. I checked the pictures you mentioned and I agree that they are really identical. But please be reminded that the purpose of these gel pictures was only to show the different types of banding pattern, and the gels of a few specific types were not very clear, so my PhD student repeatedly used the clearer ones. This misleading usage does not have an influence on data statistics or the final conclusion.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So, who is really in charge and what measures can be taken from both ends? Stay tuned for our next article<\/a> discussing the measures and techniques to detect image manipulation<\/a> in scientific publishing.<\/p>\n![\"Image](\"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/5.png\")
<\/p>\nWill Journals Take Charge?<\/h2>\n
Will Authors Take Charge?<\/h2>\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/wp-content\/plugins\/pdf-generator-for-wp\/admin\/src\/images\/PDF_Tray.svg\" "\\"Generate")
<\/a>\n\t\t<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"