Molecular and Cellular BiologyScientific Communication & EducationPeer-reviewed journal article
Analysis and Correction of Inappropriate Image Duplication: The Molecular and Cellular Biology Experience
A. Casadevall, E. M. Bik, F. C. Fang, A. Kullas, R. J. Davis
Abstract
The present study analyzed 960 papers published in Molecular and Cellular Biology (MCB) from 2009-2016 and found 59 (6.1%) to contain inappropriately duplicated images. The 59 instances of inappropriate image duplication led to 42 corrections, 5 retractions and 12 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. If this proportion is representative, then as many as 35,000 papers in the literature are candidates for retraction due to 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 two 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 post-publication problems and requires significantly less staff time than the correction of problems after publication.
- assay: imaging
- research focus: benchmarking
- research focus: database / resource
- approach: statistical model
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- The Prevalence of Inappropriate Image Duplication in Biomedical Research Publications
Elisabeth M Bik, Arturo Casadevall, Ferric C Fang·bioRxiv·May 17, 2016
- A Quantitative Study of Inappropriate Image Duplication in the Journal Toxicology Reports
S. David·bioRxiv·Sep 3, 2023
- Does charging for corrections in the bioscience literature disincentivize pre-publication handling of problematic image data? An ImageTwin-AI study.
Paul S. Brookes·bioRxiv·Jan 28, 2026
- Creating Clear and Informative Image-based Figures for Scientific Publications
Helena Klara Jambor, Alberto Antonietti, … Tracey Lynn Weissgerber·PLoS BiologyPeer-reviewed·Mar 31, 2021
- Bioscience-scale automated detection of figure element reuse
Daniel E. Acuna, Paul S. Brookes, Konrad P. Kording·bioRxiv·Feb 23, 2018
- Why Do Scientists Fabricate And Falsify Data? A Matched-Control Analysis Of Papers Containing Problematic Image Duplications
D. Fanelli, R. Costas, … E. M. Bik·bioRxiv·Apr 12, 2017