Analysis and Correction of Inappropriate Image Duplication: the Molecular and Cellular Biology Experience

Abstract

We analyzed 960 papers published in (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.

Making the scientific literature fail-safe

“…However, much of what we have learned about problems with the scientific literature has come from editors and journals willing to analyze and share their experiences. As one example, the journal Molecular and Cellular Biology recently published their experience in dealing with inappropriate image duplications (9). Their experience suggests that the majority of inappropriate image duplications are the result of simple errors, although approximately 10% of these led to retractions, and that prepublication image screening may be more efficient than waiting to deal with problems after publication.…”

“…Roughly one of every 25 articles in the biomedical literature contains an inappropriately duplicated image (4). The majority of inappropriate image duplication results from simple errors in figure assembly (9). However, a minority of these represents intentional efforts to mislead the reader, which constitutes scientific misconduct.…”

Figure errors, sloppy science, and fraud: keeping eyes on your data

“…We began formally screening the images in the main text and supplement of all papers on a path toward acceptance in the fall of 2016 and began to include a basic evaluation of statistics around this time. Although initially we were not tracking the number of papers with detected anomalies, based on our anecdotal data, we felt that we were seeing issues and rates similar to those observed by Bik and colleagues (4,5). Following suggestions that journals need to take an active role in improving the scientific literature by publishing the results of their efforts at the editorial level (6), we began formally tracking the results of our prepublication screens.…”

Systematic fabrication of scientific images revealed

“…It is also financially more viable than generally understood, as overall it requires considerably less time and effort than investigations, corrections and, at worst, retractions of problematic published material [6].…”