Digital images are data: and should be treated as such.

The scientific community has become very concerned about inappropriate image manipulation. In journals that check figures after acceptance, 20-25% of the papers contained at least one figure that did not comply with the journal's instructions to authors. The scientific press continues to report a small, but steady stream of cases of fraudulent image manipulation. Inappropriate image manipulation taints the scientific record, damages trust within science, and degrades science's reputation with the general public. Scientists can learn from historians and photojournalists, who have provided a number of examples of attempts to alter or misrepresent the historical record. Scientists must remember that digital images are numerically sampled data that represent the state of a specific sample when examined with a specific instrument. These data should be carefully managed. Changes made to the original data need to be tracked like the protocols used for other experimental procedures. To avoid pitfalls, unexpected artifacts, and unintentional misrepresentation of the image data, a number of image processing guidelines are offered.

[1]  A G Valdecasas,et al.  On the extended depth of focus algorithms for bright field microscopy. , 2001, Micron.

[2]  Hangyuan Guo.  Retraction: Guo H. Complication of central venous catheterization. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: e2. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  Renato Cruz,et al.  Reproducibility of Immunostaining Quantification and Description of a New Digital Image Processing Procedure for Quantitative Evaluation of Immunohistochemistry in Pathology , 2009, Microscopy and Microanalysis.

[4]  Helen Pearson,et al.  Forensic software traces tweaks to images , 2006, Nature.

[5]  Helen Pearson.  Image manipulation: CSI: cell biology , 2005, Nature.

[6]  Emma Marris,et al.  Should journals police scientific fraud? , 2006, Nature.

[7]  S. Suvarna,et al.  Review. Histopathology and the ‘third great lie’. When is an image not a scientifically authentic image? , 2001, Histopathology.

[8]  Mike Rossner,et al.  The JCB will let your data shine in RGB , 2004, The Journal of cell biology.

[9]  Jennifer Couzin.  Don't Pretty Up That Picture Just Yet , 2006, Science.

[10]  PublicPolicy.  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND PUBLIC POLICY , 1998 .

[11]  C. Thompson,et al.  Retraction: “Growth of single crystal ZnO nanorods on GaN using an aqueous solution method” [Appl. Phys. Lett. 87, 101908 (2005)] , 2010 .

[12]  C Anderson,et al.  Easy-to-alter digital images raise fears of tampering. , 1994, Science.

[13]  Til Aach,et al.  High Dynamic Range Microscopy for Cytopathological Cancer Diagnosis , 2009, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing.

[14]  Mike Rossner.  A false sense of security , 2008, The Journal of cell biology.

[15]  Kenneth M. Yamada,et al.  What's in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation , 2004, The Journal of cell biology.

[16]  Thomas J. Liesegang,et al.  Histopathology and the “third great lie.” When is an image not a scientifically authentic image? Suvarna SK, ∗ ∗Department of Histopathology, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Herries Road, Sheffield S5 7AU, UK. Ansary MA. Histopathology 2001;39:441–446 , 2002 .

[17]  Sandra J. McInnes,et al.  Is It Real , 2001 .

[18]  J. Ioannidis.  Why Most Published Research Findings Are False , 2005, PLoS medicine.

[19]  Edward Abraham.  Update on the AJRCCM—2007 , 2007 .

[20]  Anne-Marie Girard,et al.  Quality assurance testing for modern optical imaging systems. , 2011, Microscopy and microanalysis : the official journal of Microscopy Society of America, Microbeam Analysis Society, Microscopical Society of Canada.

[21]  James B. Pawley,et al.  Fundamental Limits in Confocal Microscopy , 2006 .

[22]  Policy and procedures on scientific misconduct , 2010, Cell Death and Differentiation.

[23]  Sung Keun Kang,et al.  Evidence of a Pluripotent Human Embryonic Stem Cell Line Derived from a Cloned Blastocyst , 2004, Science.

[24]  R M Levenson,et al.  Quantification of immunohistochemistry—issues concerning methods, utility and semiquantitative assessment II , 2006, Histopathology.

[25]  Bruce Alberts,et al.  Promoting Scientific Standards , 2010, Science.

[26]  John C. Russ,et al.  The Image Processing Handbook , 2016, Microscopy and Microanalysis.

[27]  James B. Pawley,et al.  Points, Pixels, and Gray Levels: Digitizing Image Data , 2006 .

[28]  David B. Searls,et al.  Data integration: challenges for drug discovery , 2005, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[29]  John W. Krueger.  Forensic Examination of Questioned Scientific Images , 2002 .

[30]  Bobbi S Pritt,et al.  Digital Imaging Guidelines for Pathology: A Proposal for General and Academic Use , 2003, Advances in anatomic pathology.

[31]  R. Poulsom,et al.  The Journal of Pathology's approach to publication ethics and misconduct , 2011, The Journal of pathology.

[32]  F. Cordelières,et al.  A guided tour into subcellular colocalization analysis in light microscopy , 2006, Journal of microscopy.

[33]  G J Brakenhoff,et al.  Image calibration in fluorescence microscopy , 2004, Journal of microscopy.

[34]  D. Purves,et al.  The wagon wheel illusion in movies and reality. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[35]  S. Shattil,et al.  A digital exam for hematologists , 2007 .

[36]  Steven D Shapiro,et al.  The ATS Journals' policy on image manipulation. , 2008, American journal of respiratory cell and molecular biology.

[37]  P Güneri,et al.  Fraudulent management of digital endodontic images. , 2004, International endodontic journal.

[38]  J. M. Mackenzie,et al.  Ethics and Digital Imaging , 2006, Microscopy Today.

[39]  J. Pawley,et al.  The 39 steps: a cautionary tale of quantitative 3-D fluorescence microscopy. , 2000, BioTechniques.

[40]  Mark W Tengowski,et al.  Image compression in morphometry studies requiring 21 CFR Part 11 compliance: procedure is key with TIFFs and various JPEG compression strengths. , 2004, Toxicologic pathology.

[41]  J. Miano.  What is truth? Standards of scientific integrity in American Heart Association journals. , 2010, Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology.

[42]  Douglas W. Cromey,et al.  Avoiding Twisted Pixels: Ethical Guidelines for the Appropriate Use and Manipulation of Scientific Digital Images , 2010, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[43]  D. Hyde,et al.  Morphometry of the Respiratory Tract: Avoiding the Sampling, Size, Orientation, and Reference Traps , 2007, Toxicologic pathology.

[44]  Jocelyn Kaiser.  Scientific publishing. Data integrity report sends journals back to the drawing board. , 2009, Science.

[45]  D. Tenen,et al.  Cannabinoid receptor 2 and its agonists mediate hematopoiesis and hematopoietic stem and progenitor cell mobilization. , 2011, Blood.

[46]  A. J. North,et al.  Seeing is believing? A beginners' guide to practical pitfalls in image acquisition , 2006, The Journal of cell biology.

[47]  Bonnie Meltzer.  Digital Photography--a Question of Ethics. , 1996 .

[48]  G Taubes,et al.  Technology for turning seeing into believing. , 1994, Science.

[49]  Jennifer C. Waters,et al.  Accuracy and precision in quantitative fluorescence microscopy , 2009, The Journal of cell biology.