Image Duplication Prevalent in biomedical papers (Elizabeth Bik)

wigglethemouse · Dec 18, 2019

I thought some folks would be interested in the work of Elizabeth Bik who is a microbiome researcher now investigating research integrity & misconduct. She has found between 4-6% of biomedical papers have image duplication. Some are honest mistakes, others are blatant image manipulation.
https://twitter.com/user/status/1121796872794820610

I am taking a year off from paid work to focus more on my science misconduct volunteer work. Science needs more help to detect image duplication, plagiarism, fabricated results, and predatory publishers.
Click to expand...

Nature News Article : Problematic images found in 4% of biomedical papers
https://www.nature.com/news/problematic-images-found-in-4-of-biomedical-papers-1.19802

Around 1 out of every 25 biomedical papers contains inappropriately duplicated images, a huge analysis of 20,621 research articles suggests1. The finding has prompted renewed calls for research journals to routinely check images in accepted papers before they publish them.
Click to expand...

Paper : The Prevalence of Inappropriate Image Duplication in Biomedical Research Publications
https://mbio.asm.org/content/7/3/e00809-16

ABSTRACT
Inaccurate data in scientific papers can result from honest error or intentional falsification. This study attempted to determine the percentage of published papers that contain inappropriate image duplication, a specific type of inaccurate data. The images from a total of 20,621 papers published in 40 scientific journals from 1995 to 2014 were visually screened. Overall, 3.8% of published papers contained problematic figures, with at least half exhibiting features suggestive of deliberate manipulation. The prevalence of papers with problematic images has risen markedly during the past decade. Additional papers written by authors of papers with problematic images had an increased likelihood of containing problematic images as well. As this analysis focused only on one type of data, it is likely that the actual prevalence of inaccurate data in the published literature is higher. The marked variation in the frequency of problematic images among journals suggests that journal practices, such as prepublication image screening, influence the quality of the scientific literature.
Click to expand...

Paper : Analysis and Correction of Inappropriate Image Duplication: the Molecular and Cellular Biology Experience
https://mcb.asm.org/content/38/20/e00309-18

ABSTRACT
We analyzed 960 papers published in Molecular and Cellular Biology (MCB) from 2009 to 2016 and found 59 (6.1%) to contain inappropriately duplicated images. The 59 instances of inappropriate image duplication led to 41 corrections, 5 retractions, and 13 instances in which no action was taken. Our experience suggests that the majority of inappropriate image duplications result from errors during figure preparation that can be remedied by correction. Nevertheless, ~10% of papers with inappropriate image duplications in MCB were retracted (~0.5% of total). If this proportion is representative, then as many as 35,000 papers in the literature are candidates for retraction due to inappropriate image duplication. The resolution of inappropriate image duplication concerns after publication required an average of 6 h of journal staff time per published paper. MCB instituted a pilot program to screen images of accepted papers prior to publication that identified 12 manuscripts (14.5% out of 83) with image concerns in 2 months. The screening and correction of papers before publication required an average of 30 min of staff time per problematic paper. Image screening can identify papers with problematic images prior to publication, reduces postpublication problems, and requires less staff time than the correction of problems after publication.
Click to expand...

On this forum we are very focused on ME research and after reading the writing of @dave30th we have trouble understanding why problematic ME papers are not withdrawn. The truth is that Scientific fraud in research is very prevalent, and even with damning evidence of image duplication and manipulation it is still very difficult to get papers retracted
https://twitter.com/user/status/1201974317904351232

Five years ago, I reported 800 scientific papers with image duplications to journals. As of today, only one third of these have been corrected/retracted.
Journals/institutions are very reluctant to take action.
Maybe posting these duplications in public will help
Click to expand...

If you feel like taking part in finding duplication give Elizabeth Bik a follow on Twitter where she posts problem images for anyone to have a go at finding what is wrong
https://twitter.com/MicrobiomDigest

Sly Saint · Dec 18, 2019

I posted about another of her investigations here
https://www.s4me.info/threads/magical-treatments-and-lack-of-peer-review.9798/#post-173492

Log in or Sign up

Image Duplication Prevalent in biomedical papers (Elizabeth Bik)

wigglethemouse Senior Member (Voting Rights)

Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Image Duplication Prevalent in biomedical papers (Elizabeth Bik)

wigglethemouse Senior Member (Voting Rights)

Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

Share This Page

Useful Searches