Imaging methods are vastly underreported in biomedical research

Abstract

A variety of microscopy techniques are used by researchers in the life and biomedical sciences. As these techniques become more powerful and more complex, it is vital that scientific articles containing images obtained with advanced microscopes include full details about how each image was obtained. To explore the reporting of such details we examined 240 original research articles published in eight journals. We found that the quality of reporting was poor, with some articles containing no information about how images were obtained, and many articles lacking important basic details. Efforts by researchers, funding agencies, journals, equipment manufacturers and staff at shared imaging facilities are required to improve the reporting of experiments that rely on microscopy techniques.

Reproducible image handling and analysis

“…Arguably, the rate of reporting image analysis methods will be less than or equal to the rate of reporting image acquisition methods, since acquisition comes earlier in the experimental pipeline and tends to be easier to report. For image acquisition, we know that the rate of reporting is currently low, on average about 17% and as low as 3% at some journals (Marqués et al , 2020).…”

“…The mishandling, once published, can become a misconduct. Mishandling during image data acquisition is another issue (Marqués et al , 2020); here, we focus on problems in data handling after the acquisition.…”

Effective image visualization for publications – a workflow using open access tools and concepts

“…While intentionally manipulated images are rare 2 , 3 , erroneous handling of images is more common. Another problem is that methods often insufficiently inform about image acquisition and processing 4 . Last, images frequently have low legibility, as only 10–20% of published images provide all key information (annotation of color/inset/scale/specimen) 5 .…”

Effective image visualization for publications – a workflow using open access tools and concepts

“…While intentionally manipulated images are rare 1,2 , erroneous handling of images is more common. Problematic is also that methods often insufficiently report on image acquisition and processing 3 . Last, images frequently have low legibility, as only 10-20% of published images provide all key information (annotation of color/inset/scale/specimen) 4 .…”

“…Today's scientists face rapidly evolving technologies and employ many methodologies, with microscopy and image analysis 7 just one among many. Problematic images thus partially arise from: 1) lack in training, as ethical and legible processing of microscopy data is not systematically taught 3 , 2) lack in local expertise, as image facilities are restricted to a few research hubs, and 3) while publishers established guidelines for handling image forgeries 8-10 , actionable and clear instructions for legible image publishing are lacking.…”