Menu

ISTOCK, SIELAN

Study: 35,000 Papers May Have Retraction-Worthy Image Duplication

The authors of a preprint recommend that journals implement better image screening procedures before publishing articles.

Jun 29, 2018
Catherine Offord

Up to 35,000 scientific articles may contain image manipulations serious enough to warrant retraction, according to a preprint posted to bioRxiv earlier this week (June 24). The estimate was based on an extrapolation from a thorough analysis of 960 articles published in the American Society of Microbiology’s  Molecular and Cellular Biology, which revealed inappropriately duplicated images in around 6 percent—a rate that the authors suggest could be lowered by better image screening procedures at journals before publication.

“The frequent occurrence of inappropriate image duplication in published papers is a major concern, because it reduces the integrity and credibility of the biomedical literature,” the authors write in their paper. “In the present study, we sought to determine whether an investment by a journal to scan images in accepted manuscripts prior to publication could resolve image concerns in less time than was required to address these issues after publication.”

See “Journal Cleans Up Images Archives

Study coauthor Elisabeth Bik, science editor at microbial genetics company uBiome, looked for any of three red flags when scanning the articles: duplication of the same image panel for different experiments within the same paper; duplication of a panel with a rotation or shift; and duplication of Western blot lanes or other parts of a photo within a single image. Figures she flagged were then confirmed or rejected as problematic by her coauthors on the study.

In total, the team highlighted problems with 59 of the 960 papers. After the researchers brought these concerns to the journal’s attention, 42 papers received corrections and five were retracted—a result that the authors tell Retraction Watch were within expectations given that many image problems are not the result of deliberate misconduct.

“I think we expected that most image problems were the result of error in assembling figures,” study coauthor Arturo Casadevall, editor in chief of mBio, tells Retraction Watch, “so the 10 percent retraction was not surprising.”

The authors note in their paper that while each image issue in a published paper takes around six hours for journal staff to address, those same issues can be identified in just 30 minutes before publication by image specialists. 

“Catching these errors before publication is a much better strategy than after publication,” Bik tells Retraction Watch. “I hope that our study will result in more journals following in the footsteps of [the American Society of Microbiology] by starting to pay attention to these duplications and other image problems, before they publish their papers.”

Casadevall offers an additional recommendation for how to reduce the likelihood of manipulated images slipping into the literature. “We suggest that one mechanism for reducing these types of problems is to have someone else in the group assemble the figures,” he tells Retraction Watch. “At the very least that would mean a second set of eyes looking at the figures.”

See “Coming to Grips with Coauthor Responsibility

November 2018

Intelligent Science

Wrapping our heads around human smarts

Marketplace

Sponsored Product Updates

Slice® Safety Cutters for Lab Work

Slice® Safety Cutters for Lab Work

Slice cutting tools—which feature our patent-pending safety blades—meet many lab-specific requirements. Our scalpels and craft knives are well suited for delicate work, and our utility knives are good for general use.

The Lab of the Future: Alinity Poised to Reinvent Clinical Diagnostic Testing and Help Improve Healthcare

The Lab of the Future: Alinity Poised to Reinvent Clinical Diagnostic Testing and Help Improve Healthcare

Every minute counts when waiting for accurate diagnostic test results to guide critical care decisions, making today's clinical lab more important than ever. In fact, nearly 70 percent of critical care decisions are driven by a diagnostic test.

LGC announces new, integrated, global portfolio brand, Biosearch Technologies, representing genomic tools for mission critical customer applications

LGC announces new, integrated, global portfolio brand, Biosearch Technologies, representing genomic tools for mission critical customer applications

LGC’s Genomics division announced it is transforming its branding under LGC, Biosearch Technologies, a unified portfolio brand integrating optimised genomic analysis technologies and tools to accelerate scientific outcomes.