View source for Resource:62d5d4ed-1af3-4617-aa59-cfdfd1317a85

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Image manipulation as a general practice
|Is About=As managing editor, I view all manuscripts before they are assigned to an editor. Within a 4 week period, I have detected five manuscripts where photographs of either gels or plant materials were used twice or three times in the same manuscript. These manuscripts were immediately rejected.

However, we are not convinced that these are cases of deliberate misleading of the scientific community. It rather seems to us that many laboratories consider photographs as illustrations that can be manipulated, and not as original data. Thus gels are often cleaned of impurities, bands are cut out and photographs of plant material only serve to show what the authors want to demonstrate, and the material does not necessarily originate from the experiment in question.

When the editor-in-chief rejected such a manuscript, a typical response was: “I am surprised by the question and problem you pointed out in our manuscript. I checked the pictures you mentioned and I agree that they are really identical. But please be reminded that the purpose of these gel pictures was only to show the different types of banding pattern, and the gels of a few specific types were not very clear, so my PhD student repeatedly used the clearer ones. This misleading usage does not have an influence on data statistics or the final conclusion”.
|Important For=Journal editors; Peer-reviewers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://publicationethics.org/case/image-manipulation-general-practice
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:20f32f16-72a1-46f0-b9a6-24fac05b0937;Theme:Bc0cb5c2-ac78-4c7a-b83d-b1e6033f16c6
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2014
}}