tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post1738292460618696293..comments2024-03-29T08:40:11.883+00:00Comments on BishopBlog: Manipulated images: hiding in plain sight?deevybeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15118040887173718391noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-89808587306512464412020-05-14T04:25:05.837+01:002020-05-14T04:25:05.837+01:00In the early 80s, my parents and their friends wer...In the early 80s, my parents and their friends were using optical recording of voltage sensitive dyes, which is another image-as-data kind of method. My mom talks about regular audits of all students’ work as part of their normal course of business. Even as independent scientists, they had carbon paper journals. When I completed my PhD in SLP essentially zero similar oversight existed, which totally shocked them. I still have essentially 100% of my 6 years of data in my house and have never been asked to produce it for anyone except in manuscript form. That means my hipaa compliance (I’m in the US) and my integrity are totally “don’t ask don’t tell.” I don’t know where the actual oversight went. It worries me because they did catch students by looking then, but somewhere along the way it seems someone decided it wasn’t worth the effort anymore. Now the field will face the consequences, while the authors don’t. Behavioral expectations and oversight need to be a real part of training again. Melissahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10456035836606611194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-17631706342641426752020-05-13T23:14:19.836+01:002020-05-13T23:14:19.836+01:00Hello, I agree with you but there are much bigger ...Hello, I agree with you but there are much bigger problems with this paper than the faked images (of low value anyway). Have left a critique in the comments section, still not published 6+hrs later - who has something to hide here? best wishes, Georgy Koentges, Prof of Biomedicine and Evolution, U o WarwickAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336739945490327532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-89424553450587144032020-05-13T23:11:55.385+01:002020-05-13T23:11:55.385+01:00I agree with you. But there are bigger problems wi...I agree with you. But there are bigger problems with this paper, problems of a technical nature that render it truly objectionable and scientifically without merit. Nothing can be drawn from it. I have put a detailed critique into the comments section today - first it was declared (unbeknownst to me) as SPAM , then still 6hrs later - it is still 'pending'. Does somebody have something to hide here?. I don't want to litter your blog with it, but given that I have criticized editors for not listening to referees in my critique it is astonishing to me what kind of 'filters there are or might be. ...cheers, Georgy Koentges, Prof of Biomedicine and Evolution, University of Warwick.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336739945490327532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-20148109751689165262020-05-13T22:01:49.853+01:002020-05-13T22:01:49.853+01:00Re the PI blaming a rogue member of the lab (often...Re the PI blaming a rogue member of the lab (often a grad student, probably long-departed, perhaps without leaving a forwarding address, and we're not quite sure how they spelt their last name): We need a culture like American corporate law, which has the notion that if a company commits fraud or some other crime, the CEO can be held responsible on the basis that they either "knew or should have known" what was going on. PIs should be able to satisfy themselves that there is no malfeasance going on in their lab, and they should be held responsible if it does. Let's face it, in most cases they are indeed responsible for setting the tone of the research culture, either overtly ("I want results, dammit, and your work visa is up for renewal next month") or implicitly ("I'm far too busy jetting round the world promoting my new popular book to spend time checking that the $4 million of the taxpayers' money that my lab gets every year is spent properly").Nick Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266307287741345798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-62807484313480154962020-05-13T12:57:22.827+01:002020-05-13T12:57:22.827+01:00Although Elisabeth has done Herculean work and has...Although Elisabeth has done Herculean work and has brought the issue to the attention of many, it's not really fair to say she was the first to highlight the issue. Unless she is the person behind the pseudonym "Clare Francis" familiar to many editors and research integrity officers around the world. A huge number of cases of manifest figure manipulation can now be found in the PubPeer database (started in 2012). Although Elisabeth is a very significant contributor, she is by no means the only one. Retraction Watch, Paul Brookes are other "pioneers" predating PubPeer who refused to accept this situation.<br /><br />Your anger at the impunity of these frauds is justified. Still only a tiny fraction of obvious problems in the PubPeer database lead to any visible action, be it from authors, journals or institutions. As you point out, journals accept deeply unconvincing corrections while studiously avoiding asking hard questions about just how an image could become so manipulated. Journals are of course subject to acute conflicts of interest. They are supposed to follow COPE guidelines, but they are a mess. The main retraction guideline requires "clear evidence that the findings are unreliable", which the journals seem to feel means "beyond reasonable doubt":<br /><br />https://publicationethics.org/retraction-guidelines<br /><br />However, a more specific guideline - cowritten by Springer Nature - essentially imposes that any image manipulation should lead to an automatic retraction:<br /><br />https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/what-do-if-you-suspect-image-manipulation-published-article<br /><br />There is a weaselly bit about allowing a correction if the "manipulation is very minor", but nobody ever dares explain why the manipulation is "very minor". Needless to say, the journals (including Nature) largely ignore this more explicit guideline.<br /><br />I recognised your title. Research feels relatively insignificant in the political tides sweeping us away at the moment, but we scientists can still ensure that we plough our own furrow straight. Contrary to many activities, research is quite democratic and a small amount of collective action can be surprisingly effective. It is easy to pick off one person complaining by characterising them as a crank, a failed scientist, etc. But if five or ten express the same opinion publicly, that becomes very difficult to ignore. I've long argued that evaluations should take a severe view of low-quality work and of course of fraud. Until it becomes a career negative for people publish crap they will continue to do so.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13571146233830088355noreply@blogger.com