Literature DB >> 30037982

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

Elisabeth M Bik1, Ferric C Fang2,3, Amy L Kullas4, Roger J Davis5, Arturo Casadevall6.   

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.
Copyright © 2018 American Society for Microbiology.

Keywords:  duplications; image; publication

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30037982      PMCID: PMC6168979          DOI: 10.1128/MCB.00309-18

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Cell Biol        ISSN: 0270-7306            Impact factor:   4.272


  16 in total

1.  Ethical dilemmas in journal publication.

Authors:  Olubukola Babalola; Jane M Grant-Kels; Lawrence Charles Parish
Journal:  Clin Dermatol       Date:  2012 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.541

2.  Scientific misconduct encountered by APAME journals: an online survey.

Authors:  Lai-Meng Looi; Li Xuan Wong; Cing Chai Koh
Journal:  Malays J Pathol       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 0.656

3.  Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism.

Authors:  D A Kronick
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1990-03-09       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  JOURNAL CLUB: Plagiarism in Manuscripts Submitted to the AJR: Development of an Optimal Screening Algorithm and Management Pathways.

Authors:  Donna B Taylor
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2017-01-26       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Setting the (Scientific) Record Straight: Molecular and Cellular Biology Responds to Postpublication Review.

Authors:  Amy L Kullas; Roger J Davis
Journal:  Mol Cell Biol       Date:  2017-05-16       Impact factor: 4.272

6.  Reviewing post-publication peer review.

Authors:  Paul Knoepfler
Journal:  Trends Genet       Date:  2015-04-04       Impact factor: 11.639

7.  Researchers have finally created a tool to spot duplicated images across thousands of papers.

Authors:  Declan Butler
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  The Prevalence of Inappropriate Image Duplication in Biomedical Research Publications.

Authors:  Elisabeth M Bik; Arturo Casadevall; Ferric C Fang
Journal:  MBio       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 7.867

9.  ASM Journals Eliminate Impact Factor Information from Journal Websites.

Authors:  Arturo Casadevall; Stefano Bertuzzi; Michael J Buchmeier; Roger J Davis; Harold Drake; Ferric C Fang; Jack Gilbert; Barbara M Goldman; Michael J Imperiale; Philip Matsumura; Alexander J McAdam; Marcela F Pasetti; Rozanne M Sandri-Goldin; Thomas Silhavy; Louis Rice; Jo-Anne H Young; Thomas Shenk
Journal:  MBio       Date:  2016-07-11       Impact factor: 7.867

Review 10.  A scoping review protocol on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals.

Authors:  Ketevan Glonti; Daniel Cauchi; Erik Cobo; Isabelle Boutron; David Moher; Darko Hren
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-10-22       Impact factor: 2.692

View more
  8 in total

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

Authors:  Corinne L Williams; Arturo Casadevall; Sarah Jackson
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2019-03-25       Impact factor: 14.808

2.  Making the scientific literature fail-safe.

Authors:  Arturo Casadevall; Ferric C Fang
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2018-09-04       Impact factor: 14.808

3.  Publication pressure and scientific misconduct: why we need more open governance.

Authors:  Simon Gandevia
Journal:  Spinal Cord       Date:  2018-09-07       Impact factor: 2.772

4.  A Synthesis of the Formats for Correcting Erroneous and Fraudulent Academic Literature, and Associated Challenges.

Authors:  Jaime A Teixeira da Silva
Journal:  J Gen Philos Sci       Date:  2022-06-01

5.  Editors Should Declare Conflicts of Interest.

Authors:  Jaime A Teixeira da Silva; Judit Dobránszki; Radha Holla Bhar; Charles T Mehlman
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2019-04-23       Impact factor: 1.352

6.  Reasons for and time to retraction of genetics articles published between 1970 and 2018.

Authors:  Rafael Dal-Ré; Carmen Ayuso
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2019-07-12       Impact factor: 6.318

7.  Retracted articles in the biomedical literature from Indian authors.

Authors:  Bakthavachalam Elango
Journal:  Scientometrics       Date:  2021-03-07       Impact factor: 3.238

8.  Do individual and institutional predictors of misconduct vary by country? Results of a matched-control analysis of problematic image duplications.

Authors:  Daniele Fanelli; Matteo Schleicher; Ferric C Fang; Arturo Casadevall; Elisabeth M Bik
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-03-02       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.