Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Sep 28;38(20):e00309-18.
doi: 10.1128/MCB.00309-18. Print 2018 Oct 15.

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

Affiliations

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

Elisabeth M Bik et al. Mol Cell Biol. .

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.

Keywords: duplications; image; publication.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIG 1
FIG 1
Percentage of papers published in ASM's Molecular and Cellular Biology containing potential inappropriate image duplication. Inspection of manuscripts prepublication started in 2013.
FIG 2
FIG 2
Percentage of accepted MCB manuscripts that were found to have problematic images, 2013 to 2016. No screening for problematic images was done before 2013. NA, not applicable.

References

    1. Bik EM, Casadevall A, Fang FC. 2016. The prevalence of inappropriate image duplication in biomedical research publications. mBio 7(3):e00809-. doi:10.1128/mBio.00809-16. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Knoepfler P. 2015. Reviewing post-publication peer review. Trends Genet 31:221–223. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2015.03.006. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fang FC, Casadevall A. 2011. Retracted science and the retraction index. Infect Immun 79:3855–3859. doi:10.1128/IAI.05661-11. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fanelli D, Costas R, Fang FC, Casadevall A, Bik EM. 19 February 2018. Testing hypotheses on risk factors for scientific misconduct via matched-control analysis of papers containing problematic image duplications. Sci Eng Ethics doi:10.1007/s11948-018-0023-7. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Casadevall A, et al. . 2016. ASM journals eliminate impact factor information from journal websites. mBio 7(4):e01150-. doi:10.1128/mBio.01150-16. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources