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

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. 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.

[1]  Rodrigo Costas,et al.  Testing Hypotheses on Risk Factors for Scientific Misconduct via Matched-Control Analysis of Papers Containing Problematic Image Duplications , 2018, Science and Engineering Ethics.

[2]  J. Beall,et al.  RePAIR consensus guidelines: Responsibilities of Publishers, Agencies, Institutions, and Researchers in protecting the integrity of the research record , 2018, Research Integrity and Peer Review.

[3]  D. Butler Researchers have finally created a tool to spot duplicated images across thousands of papers , 2018, Nature.

[4]  D. Moher,et al.  A scoping review protocol on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals , 2017, BMJ Open.

[5]  Amy L. Kullas,et al.  Setting the (Scientific) Record Straight: Molecular and Cellular Biology Responds to Postpublication Review , 2017, Molecular and Cellular Biology.

[6]  R. Gemayel,et al.  Avoiding common pitfalls of manuscript and figure preparation , 2017, The FEBS journal.

[7]  A. Casadevall,et al.  Why do scientists fabricate and falsify data? A matched-control analysis of papers containing problematic image duplications , 2017, bioRxiv.

[8]  D. Taylor Plagiarism in Manuscripts Submitted to the AJR: Development of an Optimal Screening Algorithm and Management Pathways. , 2017, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[9]  D. Taylor JOURNAL CLUB: Plagiarism in Manuscripts Submitted to the AJR: Development of an Optimal Screening Algorithm and Management Pathways. , 2017, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  J. Lykkesfeldt Strategies for Using Plagiarism Software in the Screening of Incoming Journal Manuscripts: Recommendations Based on a Recent Literature Survey , 2016, Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology.

[11]  A. Casadevall,et al.  ASM Journals Eliminate Impact Factor Information from Journal Websites , 2016, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[12]  A. Casadevall,et al.  ASM Journals Eliminate Impact Factor Information from Journal Websites , 2016, mBio.

[13]  Elisabeth M. Bik,et al.  The Prevalence of Inappropriate Image Duplication in Biomedical Research Publications , 2016, mBio.

[14]  L. Looi,et al.  Response: Scientific misconduct encountered by APAME journals: insight? , 2016, The Malaysian journal of pathology.

[15]  L. Looi,et al.  Scientific misconduct encountered by APAME journals: an online survey. , 2015, The Malaysian journal of pathology.

[16]  Paul Knoepfler,et al.  Reviewing post-publication peer review. , 2015, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[17]  Kenneth M. Yamada,et al.  Reproducibility and cell biology , 2015, The Journal of cell biology.

[18]  A. Casadevall,et al.  Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[19]  O. Babalola,et al.  Ethical dilemmas in journal publication. , 2012, Clinics in dermatology.

[20]  A. Casadevall,et al.  Retracted Science and the Retraction Index , 2011, Infection and Immunity.

[21]  L. Bonetta The Aftermath of Scientific Fraud , 2006, Cell.

[22]  Mike Rossner Figure manipulation , 2002, The Journal of Cell Biology.

[23]  D. Kronick Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. , 1990, JAMA.