See, But Don’t Believe
Friday’s Science reported that one in four published journal articles has misleadingly manipulated images.
Some biologists become so excited by a weak signal suggesting the presence of a particular molecule that "they’ll take a picture of it, they’ll boost the contrast, and they’ll make it look positive" … scientific journals, concerned about a growing number of cases of image manipulation, are cracking down on such practices with varying degrees of aggressiveness. At one end of the spectrum is the biweekly Journal of Cell Biology, which for the past 4 years has scrutinized images in every paper accepted for publication — and reports that a staggering 25% contain at least one image that violated the journal’s guidelines. That number has held steady over time …
Most journals are reluctant to devote much staff time and money to hunting for images that have been inappropriately modified. Vanishing few are emulating the Journal of Cell Biology. … and its two sister journals, which have a dedicated staffer who reviews the roughly 800 papers accepted by all three each year. Science‘s screening is principally designed to pick up selective changes in contrast and images that are cut and pasted. … Since initiating image analysis earlier this year, Science has seen "some number less than 10," or a few percent at most. … the difference might be due to … the fact that [the Journal of Cell Biology‘s] staffer … is now unusually experienced at hunting for modifications.
The cost-effectiveness of this one staffer in disciplining an entire field of research seems enormous. We could clearly increase research progress overall by replacing a few more researchers with such staffers. The fact that no other journals do anything close suggests either that we have a serious coordination failure, or that research progress is not a high priority.
Gustavo,
I think scientists have an erroneous (self-servingly biased) view of their collective intellectual integrity, so that they underweight the probability of massaged data, and see only a small credibility benefit as an early adopter, when most respected scientists are not using RR certifications. If more scientists start using the label, then not doing so will become suspicious, in the same way that legal cash payments for big-ticket items have become suspicious.
Robin,
I see a few paths to wider adoption of image-checkers, RR certification, etc:
1. A few more high-profile cases like the Korean faux-cloning lab, with harsh punishments, could raise the level of suspicion among scientists, increasing the credibility benefits of the procedures.
2. One large government grant agency or private foundation could condition funds on use of the procedures (similar to requiring the advance registration of clinical trials), and set off a chain reaction. China's issues with faked research might lead it to implement such a ruleset.
3. Continued publication of results like the Journal of Cell Biology's persuading a few opinion leaders (Nobel laureates, the most elite departments) to publicly adopt the procedures and create a new norm that lower-status research entities would mimic.
Gustavo, authors can already make their results exactly reproducible, and advertise that fact in their abstract and introduction. And other authors can attempt to so reproduce. Authors clearly do not now think that they will be rewarded for such efforts enough to cover their costs. Sure, "someone" could change things by offering more rewards for such behavior. But who? Either we find a new equilibrium in the relatively decentralized academic system we have, or we introduce a new "center" with enough resources to promote such things.