Missing
Added or changed
eight
What’s wrong with this picture?
W. LaJean Chaffin, Ph.D.Dept. Immunology & Molecular Microbiology
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center
Truth in pictures/images Image alteration outside science
Selection of examples Photojournalism
Image alteration in biomedical science Images are data Prevalence of inappropriate image alteration Prevention of publication of such images Detection inappropriate alteration What to do if you suspect problematic image Best practices or acceptable image manipulation
photoshop/photoshoppedtransitive verb: to alter (a digital image) with Photoshop software or other image-editing software especially in a way that distorts reality (as for deliberately deceptive purposes)
Photoshop registered trademark of Adobe Systems, Inc. for photo editing software
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/photoshop; access June 10, 2016
John C. Calhoun
Abraham Lincoln by Mathew Brady 1864
Head of Lincoln, flipped and body and background from Calhoun
Composite attributed to John Hicks may be the first “photoshopped”. After 1865 Lincoln assassination.
Stalin routinely airbrushed enemies or those out of favor out of photo
Hitler removed Goebbels when out of favor
Released Nov 5, 2008 by North Korean Central News Agency released 2 photos when Kim Jong-il thought to be very sick; image questioned by BBC and U.K. Times
King George VI and Queen Elizabeth with Canadian Prime Minster W.L. M. King, 1939
Images Stalin, Hitler, and King: Ye Olde Photoshoppe: The first ever altered images (including two pictures stitched together to make iconic portrait of Abraham Lincoln). Daily Mail, Feb 28, 2012 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2107109/Iconic-Abraham-Lincoln-portrait-revealed-TWO-pictures-stitched-together.html
Airbrushing publicity shots: models, actors, public personalities
Generally accepted that publicity shots of these professionals may be airbrushed
Software packages to airbrush faces, change makeup, hair color, bodies e.g. PortraitPro15
2008 publicity shot Taylor Swift for album FearlessTaylor Swift: in pictures. Telegraph UK 16 Oct 2015. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/artists/taylor-swift-in-pictures/
Photojournalists 2003 Brian Walski of Los Angeles Times fired after
submitting a photograph of war in Iraq that composite of two images that was shared with other Tribune properties; “ was totally unacceptable and he violated our trust with our readers…”
2006 Rueters free lance photojournalist Beirut Adnan Hajj in Beirut enhanced photographs (e.g. added smoke, add missiles
2007 Toledo Blade fired award winning photojournalist Allan Detrich. Investigation showed that submitted 947 photographs January -March of which 79 digitally altered and 27 of altered photographs published in the newspaper and another 31 only online.
Images http://www.toledoblade.com/assets/pdf/TO16827415.PDF
2012 Award winning photojournalist Bryan Patrick fired by Sacramento Bee with printed apology to readers explaining background. After tip by reader lead to investigation image manipulation
2014 AP severed ties with Pulitzer Prize winning photojournalist Narcisco Contreras over altered photograph
Consequences of pointing out doctored images2012 photographer Johann Hattingh for The Citizen (a Johannesburg, South Africa) tweeted about a image on the cover was manipulated to remove bodies of two South Africans killed in blast in Kabul. He was fired.
IMAGES ARE DATA
Federal definition research misconduct NIH
Definition of Research MisconductResearch misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.(a) Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
(b) Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
(c) Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
(d) Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion. Last Updated on Mon, 2011-04-25 12:05.
http://ori.dhhs.gov/definition-misconduct accessed June 6, 2016 NSF similar http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/si/sipolicy.pdf;
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/manuals/gpm05_131/gpm9.jsp#930
Office Research Integrity (DHHS) findings of misconduct involving images and/or mislabeling figures
2011: 7 of 13 cases (54%) 2012: 6 of 13 cases (46%) 2013: 1 of 5 cases (20%) 2014: 4 of 13 cases (31%) 2015: 3 of 14 cases (21%) 2016 to date: 3 of 5 cases (60%) (1 case -
41 published images, 1 case - over 100 Western blot images in record)
Journals and image manipulation policies stated
PLoS One. 2012. 7(12):e51928. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051928. Epub 2012 Dec 19.Misconduct policies in high-impact biomedical journals.Bosch X, Hernández C, Pericas JM, Doti P, Marušić A.
Survey misconduct policies 399 high impact journals in 27 biomedical categories
140 (35.1%) explicit definitions of misconduct 154 (38.6%) image manipulation 112 (28.1%) use plagiarism checking services
Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications, Fang, FC, RG Steen, A Casedevall, 2012, PNAS 109; 17028
2047 PubMed articles on May 3, 2012 listed as retracted-21.3% error; 67.4% misconduct (fraud or suspected fraud 43.4%, duplicate publication 14.2%, plagiarism 9.5%). Percentage retracted because of fraud increase 10X since 1975
Prepublication screening J Cell Biology-2002
25% image problems 1% acceptance revoked for image
manipulation From Liz Williams executive Editor in Research integrity: Cell-induced stress, News
feature by David Cyranoski,Nature July 2014, 511. http://www.nature.com/news/research-integrity-cell-induced-stress-1.15507.
From Mike Rossner, Editor in Chief quoted. Image manipulation. Author of popular blog that charged fraud unmasked. By J Couzin-Frankel in Science. 2013 Jan 11;339(6116):132. doi: 10.1126/science.339.6116.132
EMBO Journals Experience-2011Level Attributes Action %
2014
I Cosmetic aberrations or mistakes with supporting source data and satisfactory author explanation
Allow revision, no report to institution
12
II Data “beautification” and undeclared manipulation that changes conclusions; available source data or new data
May allow revision, may report to institution
8
III Image manipulation with digital obfuscation (splicing, cloning, insertion, and selective deletion); no explanation; no source data
Reject and report < 0.5
Total 20.4
Pulverer, B, When things go wrong: correcting the scientrific record. 2015. The EMBO J 34:2483. (Editor in Chief)
EMBO journals Jana Christopher dedicated image analysis staff @20% accepted papers problem
Discuss with scientific editor (sometimes Chief Editor) May go back to authors and ask raw data for a series of
figures and may hint should insure carefully checked. Good sign if authors pick up problem
1% revoked for image manipulation If EMBO paper flagged on PubPeer will check immediately
but usually older papers and only low resolution. Interview for The image detective who roots out manuscript flaws by
Richard Van Noorden, June 2015, Nature in News: Q&A; http://www.nature.com/news/the-image-detective-who-roots-out-manuscript-flaws-1.17749
Other Journals June 2015 After interview with Jana Christopher, van
Noorden checked other journals UK Publisher The Company of Biologists
check their 5 journals; Development, J Cell Sci, J Exp Biol; Dis Models Mech; Biol Open
His own Nature Publishing Group-spot check and maybe key Western blots (2/wk). Spokesperson added not the resources to do all but continually review procedures
The prevalence of Inappropriate Image Duplication in Biomedical Research PublicationsBik, E.M., A. Casadevall, F.C. Fang; 2016 doi:10.112/mBio. 00809-16 (7 June 2016)
Screened 20,621 papers from 40 journals 1995-2014 (several publishers, different impact factors, identified in each journal with search term “western blot”
Examined all images (not just Western blot) on screen
Cat 1: simple duplication fig with >2 identical panels in same fig or different figs same paper-most common example reuse of ß-actin loading controls Panel A & B published
correction Could be honest
assembly error
Cat II: Duplication and repositioning; microscopic or blot images with clear regions of overlap, where one image had been shifted, rotated or reversed with respect to the other Panel A & B published
correction
Cat III. Duplication with alterations: images altered -complete or partial duplication of lanes, bands, or groups of cells. May have reversal with respect to each other, within the same image panel or between panels or figures. Includes “stamping”-defined area duplicated multiple times in same image; “patching”-part of image obscured by area of different bkgd, FACS images sharing conserved regions and other regions with data pts added or removed Panel A retracted Panel B corrected
Summary Bik et al findings 1 in 25 papers altered images (3.8%)
Relatively low 1995-2002 @2% and then 4%
Int J Oncol 12% to J Cell Bio 0.3% which screened images since 2002
Country of origin (PLOS ONE) 2013-2014: predicted probability India 1.93, China 1.89, Taiwan 1.2, US 0.6, UK 0.47, Japan 0.26, Germany 0.24
Summary Bik et al findings
Selected subset of 559 papers and looked other papers of first and last author 2,425 papers Found 269 papers problematic images. 11.1% which
greater original dataset: so increased probability if problematic image in one paper also another
Fig 4
Pisconti, et al (2006) J Cell Biol 172:233-244. Retracted for image manipulation Jan 22, 2013
Ricky Malhotra et al. J. Biol. Chem. 2010;285:13748-13760
©2010 by American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Fig 1 Fig 2 Fig 4
May 24 & June 1 ORI reported findings of misconduct for Ricky Malhotra and Karen M. D’Souza respectively. Among findings for Malhotra relabeling of images in notebook and some used grant applications, presentation and one publication. Below images from a JBC paper attributed to Malhotra also in Fig 7 of this paper D’Souza for fabricated/falsified data in Western blot.
Detection inappropriate image manipulation or forensics
Example of discussion from Dept Computer Sciences- contains examples, refs http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/downloads/tutorials/digitalimageforensics.pdfSome subjects discussedFormat based, e.g. JPEGCameraPixelStatisticalGeometricPhysics
Image manipulation detection Image manipulation detection software
ORI has tools work with Photoshop https://ori.hhs.gov/forensic-tools for download https://ori.hhs.gov/advanced-forensic-actions (updated Oct 2015) and examples https://ori.hhs.gov/samples EMBO journals use ORI software JCB or Company of Biologists?
Image manipulation detection Image Data Integrity-consultants, Pres.
Mike Rossner who started screening at JCBhttp://www.imagedataintegrity.com/
Fourandsix founded by Kevin Connor and Hany Rafid Isitru (trust rating) free for consumers Tips on image forensic techniques Responsible use of imaging toolshttp://www.fourandsix.com/
http://www.imageforensic.org/ upload photo for analysis
Observation by readers Observation
If you suspect inappropriate image manipulation PubMed PubPeer Contact journal/editor Contact author Contact institution
If you suspect image manipulation
PubPeer- Post publication peer review (PPPR) Anonymous, if desired. Anonymity upheld in
state court with small caveat still under consideration https://pubpeer.com/
Can also post image on Imgurhttp://imgur.com/
Search for paper of interest or can select Recent to see which papers generating comments
Options PubMed
Pro Venue for posting comments
Con Unnecessarily embarrass authors-no mistake,
honest error Not anonymous-
Risk of lawsuit by authors Negative response from colleagues
Options- PubPeer-PPPR Pro
Anonymous Not all countries have strong or institutionalized policies on misconduct Some journals check
Con Unnecessarily embarrass authors honest error Lead to vigilantism, witch hunt May not remain anonymous. Lawsuit by Fazlul Sarkar to identify
anonymous commenters on PubPeer to sue them for defamation because contends comments cost job offer; ruling that must disclose 1 of 3 commenter IP address. Appeal by ACLU and Harold Varmus and Bruce Alberts filed support briefs; Wayne State revealed IP address of this commenter without objection around Jan 20, 2016 (appears against federal regulation, that complainant(s) kept confidential; free speech)
Anonymous whistle blowers-Committee on Publication Ethics Discussion Document
100s or 1000s requests to editors on plagiarism, image manipulation
COPE –generally editor take seriously if specific detailed evidence to support.
Pro- Potential to remain anonymous Journal tools to investigate Does not publicize authors Journal may notify institution if find issues
Con Not all editors or journals follow up
http://publicationethics.org/files/Whistleblowers_document_Final.pdf Jan 2013
Author Pro
Give chance to correct honest error on own initiative or respond that no issue
Might be able to contact anonymously
Con If misconduct, give chance to destroy records May cause friction between individuals
Institution Pro
USA:Procedures and policies for allegations Supposed to keep complainant
anonymous and investigate Report to funding agency
Con Institution may be reluctant to engage in
investigation Have seen that Wayne State did not fully
keep complainant anonymity
Recommendation from Retraction Watch co-founders Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus re reporting suspected misconduct
Institutional Research Integrity Officers or equivalent May consider copying Office Research
Integrity or equivalent (investigation at institutional level but create paper trail)
Try PubPeerMarcus A and I Oransky. A Retraction: we gave bad advice. Lab Times 2015 Issue 6 p 37, Nov 25; http://www.labtimes-archiv.de/epaper/LT_15_06/#37/zPosted on Retraction Watch Nov 30, 2015 http://retractionwatch.com/2015/11/30/a-retraction-watch-retraction-our-2013-advice-on-reporting-misconduct-turns-out-to-have-been-wrong/
Suggestions to maintain integrity (sources last slide) Maintain an original copy of the image
in a medium that can not be altered, e.g. CD-R
Clearly label (and relate to experiment details)
NEVER work on or manipulate the original image (even generally accepted manipulations)
Generally acceptable manipulations
Applied to WHOLE image generally acceptable while applied to only one area questionable Small adjustments to brightness and contrast generally
acceptable BUT large changes may be questionable and truncate intensity information. Gamma adjustment to midtones usually Ok but need declaration.
Contrast or histogram stretch usually OK with low contrast images if no outliers
Small changes in color may be acceptable if color is not part of the information carried by the image but if part of data, e.g. colocalization, color change/distortion of dyes inappropriate
Generally acceptable manipulations
Cropping an image to remove true background generally acceptable BUT Remove part of image not support hypothesis is NOT Cropping may change context. Someone else may look at image
and see something that generates new idea or interpretation Cropping too much may leave too few pixels for reproduction in
journal/publication
Combining images is acceptable most journals ONLY if it is clear that two images involved and delineated, e.g. small gap, dark line. Depending on the experiment may be better to rerun an experiment on the same gel.
Cloning or copying objects from one part of the image or a different image is VERY questionable.
Additional suggestions Commercial image manipulation software.
Usually not recommended for biological images. Magnification. Since ultimate magnification is
often unknown, using magnification bars on the initial image that can be carried through is the best way to maintain scale.
Intensity measurements. Perform on raw data and data calibrated to a known standard.
Comparison. Images to be compared should be acquired under same conditions
Additional suggestions Size. Changing the size of image can introduce
artefacts. If the downsizing is not by a power of two the program has to “guess” while the power of two is a form of averaging which is somewhat better but still is a loss of resolution. Increasing the size also requires the software to create new pixels between the original ones and again the software has to “guess”. If the size must be changed it should only be once and the LAST manipulation of the image. If using Adobe Photoshop under :”Image Size” make sure the that the “Resample Image” is NOT checked.
Additional suggestions Avoid JPEG files. JPEG files are compressed
files (lossy compression) that also change XY resolution and intensity value of any given pixel. Happens each save. If must be used should be last step.
Image acquisition. For publication and sharing, acknowledge or describe in Methods the image acquisition and processing manipulations as appropriate.
How can we improve the picture
Likely >25,000 papers/yr in biomedical science have problematic, false images
Something is wrong with this picture
More journals use image checking More journals investigate allegations Complete development of misconduct policies in
countries and institutions Require use of authentication service prior to
submission Reviewers may identify more problematic if
assess images before reading text
Sources Societies and journals have articulated positions on imaging ethics. Some examples of
opinions, statements and policies http://www.springerlink.com/content/00311qw26613m261/fulltext.pdf Microscopy Society of America; http://www.microscopy.org/resources/digital_imaging.cfm http://www.springerlink.com/content/00311qw26613m261/fulltext.pdf Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/submissions/images/index.html Journal Cell biology in Instructions to Authors: http://jcb.rupress.org/site/misc/ifora.xhtml
Couzin, J. 2006. Don’t Pretty up that Picture just yet. Science 314:1866-1868 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/314/5807/1866.pdf?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&volume=314&firstpage=1866&resourcetype=HWCIT
Rossner, M. and Yamada. K. M. 2004. What’s in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation J Cell Biol 166:11-15. http://jcb.rupress.org/cgi/reprint/166/1/11
The Office of Research Integrity has posted guidelines, questionable practices, case study and misconduct cases. http://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/RIandImages/default.html
Example from PubPeerBik and anonymoushttps://pubpeer.com/publications/F30641CE24023236C0C54A9229F69ESci. Rep liverColon: Frontiers in Pharmacology expression of concern investigate, higher education ministry in MalaysiaPeerJ expression of Concern; 4th in Recent patents on anti-cancer drugs