Literature DB >> 23026995

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

Douglas W Cromey1.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23026995      PMCID: PMC4210356          DOI: 10.1007/978-1-62703-056-4_1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Methods Mol Biol        ISSN: 1064-3745


  48 in total

Review 1.  Digital imaging guidelines for pathology: a proposal for general and academic use.

Authors:  Bobbi S Pritt; Pamela C Gibson; Kumarasen Cooper
Journal:  Adv Anat Pathol       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 3.875

2.  Image compression in morphometry studies requiring 21 CFR Part 11 compliance: procedure is key with TIFFs and various JPEG compression strengths.

Authors:  Mark W Tengowski
Journal:  Toxicol Pathol       Date:  2004 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.902

3.  Images to reveal all?

Authors: 
Journal:  Nat Cell Biol       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 28.824

4.  Combating scientific misconduct.

Authors: 
Journal:  Nat Cell Biol       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 28.824

5.  Scientific publishing. Don't pretty up that picture just yet.

Authors:  Jennifer Couzin
Journal:  Science       Date:  2006-12-22       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  A guided tour into subcellular colocalization analysis in light microscopy.

Authors:  S Bolte; F P Cordelières
Journal:  J Microsc       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 1.758

7.  Morphometry of the respiratory tract: avoiding the sampling, size, orientation, and reference traps.

Authors:  Dallas M Hyde; Nancy K Tyler; Charles G Plopper
Journal:  Toxicol Pathol       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 1.902

8.  Reproducibility of immunostaining quantification and description of a new digital image processing procedure for quantitative evaluation of immunohistochemistry in pathology.

Authors:  Vagner Bernardo; Simone Q C Lourenço; Renato Cruz; Luiz H Monteiro-Leal; Licínio E Silva; Danielle R Camisasca; Marcos Farina; Ulysses Lins
Journal:  Microsc Microanal       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 4.127

9.  Easy-to-alter digital images raise fears of tampering.

Authors:  C Anderson
Journal:  Science       Date:  1994-01-21       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  Evidence of a pluripotent human embryonic stem cell line derived from a cloned blastocyst.

Authors:  Woo Suk Hwang; Young June Ryu; Jong Hyuk Park; Eul Soon Park; Eu Gene Lee; Ja Min Koo; Hyun Yong Jeon; Byeong Chun Lee; Sung Keun Kang; Sun Jong Kim; Curie Ahn; Jung Hye Hwang; Ky Young Park; Jose B Cibelli; Shin Yong Moon
Journal:  Science       Date:  2004-02-12       Impact factor: 47.728

View more
  6 in total

1.  Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors.

Authors:  David B Resnik; Susan A Elmore
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2015-01-30       Impact factor: 3.525

2.  Visualization of endosome dynamics in living nerve terminals with four-dimensional fluorescence imaging.

Authors:  Richard S Stewart; Ilona M Kiss; Robert S Wilkinson
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2014-04-16       Impact factor: 1.355

3.  Deepfakes: A new threat to image fabrication in scientific publications?

Authors:  Liansheng Wang; Lianyu Zhou; Wenxian Yang; Rongshan Yu
Journal:  Patterns (N Y)       Date:  2022-05-13

Review 4.  Tutorial: guidance for quantitative confocal microscopy.

Authors:  James Jonkman; Claire M Brown; Graham D Wright; Kurt I Anderson; Alison J North
Journal:  Nat Protoc       Date:  2020-03-31       Impact factor: 13.491

5.  A beginner's guide to rigor and reproducibility in fluorescence imaging experiments.

Authors:  Jen-Yi Lee; Maiko Kitaoka
Journal:  Mol Biol Cell       Date:  2018-07-01       Impact factor: 4.138

6.  Creating clear and informative image-based figures for scientific publications.

Authors:  Helena Jambor; Alberto Antonietti; Bradly Alicea; Tracy L Audisio; Susann Auer; Vivek Bhardwaj; Steven J Burgess; Iuliia Ferling; Małgorzata Anna Gazda; Luke H Hoeppner; Vinodh Ilangovan; Hung Lo; Mischa Olson; Salem Yousef Mohamed; Sarvenaz Sarabipour; Aalok Varma; Kaivalya Walavalkar; Erin M Wissink; Tracey L Weissgerber
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 8.029

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.