Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Latest Articles
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • Topics
    • Applied and Environmental Science
    • Clinical Science and Epidemiology
    • Ecological and Evolutionary Science
    • Host-Microbe Biology
    • Molecular Biology and Physiology
    • Therapeutics and Prevention
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About mBio
    • Editor in Chief
    • Board of Editors
    • AAM Fellows
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
mBio
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Latest Articles
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • Topics
    • Applied and Environmental Science
    • Clinical Science and Epidemiology
    • Ecological and Evolutionary Science
    • Host-Microbe Biology
    • Molecular Biology and Physiology
    • Therapeutics and Prevention
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About mBio
    • Editor in Chief
    • Board of Editors
    • AAM Fellows
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
Perspective

The Prevalence of Inappropriate Image Duplication in Biomedical Research Publications

Elisabeth M. Bik, Arturo Casadevall, Ferric C. Fang
L. David Sibley, Editor
Elisabeth M. Bik
aDepartment of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Arturo Casadevall
bDepartment of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
cDepartment of Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ferric C. Fang
dDepartments of Laboratory Medicine and Microbiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
L. David Sibley
Washington University School of Medicine
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/mBio.00809-16
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Supplemental Material
  • Additional Files
  • FIG 1 
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 1 

    Publications investigated by year of publication. The majority of screened papers were published in 2013 and 2014, due to the large proportion of PLoS One papers (39.5%) in the data set. The lowest number of papers (n = 151) screened in this study was published in 1996.

  • FIG 2 
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 2 

    Examples of simple duplications (category I). (A) The beta-actin control panel in the top left is identical to the panel in the bottom right (green boxes), although each panel represents a different experimental condition. This figure appeared in reference 27 and was corrected in reference 28. (Reproduced with permission from the publisher.) (B) The panels shown here were derived from two different figures within the same paper (reference 29; corrected in reference 30). Two of the top panels appear identical to two of the bottom panels, but they represent different experimental conditions (red and blue boxes). (Figure reproduced under the Creative Commons [CC BY] license.) All duplications might have been caused by honest errors during assembly of the figures.

  • FIG 3 
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 3 

    Examples of duplication with repositioning (category II). (A) Although the panels represent four different experimental conditions, three of the four panels appear to show a region of overlap (green and blue boxes), suggesting that these photographs were actually obtained from the same specimen. These panels originally appeared in reference 31 and were corrected in reference 32. (B) Western blot panels that purportedly depict different proteins and cellular fractions, but the blots appear very similar, albeit shifted by two lanes (red boxes). Panels originally appeared in reference 33, and were corrected in reference 34. (Figures in both panels were reproduced under the Creative Commons [CC BY] license.)

  • FIG 4 
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 4 

    Examples of duplication with alteration (category III). (A) The left and right FACS panels represent different experimental conditions and show different percentages of cell subsets, but regions of identity (colored boxes) between the panels suggest that the images have been altered. (This illustration originally appeared in reference 35; the article was retracted in reference 36.) (Reproduced with permission from the publisher.) (B) The figure shown here displays Western blotting results for 10 different protein fractions isolated from a density gradient. The figure appears to show a single blot, but the last two lanes (red circles) appear to contain an identical band. Exposure was altered to bring out details in reference 37; the figure was corrected in reference 38. (Figure reproduced under the Creative Commons [CC BY] license.)

  • FIG 5 
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 5 

    Percentage of papers containing inappropriate image duplications by year of publication. No papers with duplications were found in 1995. The dark gray bars show the data for all 40 journals. The light gray bars show a subset of 16 journals for which papers spanning the complete timespan of 20 years were scanned. The total numbers of papers screened in each year are shown in Fig. 1.

  • FIG 6 
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 6 

    Correlation between journal impact factor and percentage of papers with image duplication. Only papers from 2005 to 2014 (n = 17,816) were included in this analysis. Each data point represents a journal included in this study (n = 40), with data points color-coded according to the publisher (n = 14; journals published by AAAS, Nature, Cell Press, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Rockefeller University Press are grouped under “other.”) The x axis is shown on a logarithmic scale due to the small number of journals with a high impact factor included in this study. The blue line shows a linear regression model. The gray zone depicts the 95% confidence interval.

  • FIG 7 
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 7 

    Proportion of papers with image duplications by country. The proportion of papers affiliated with specific countries submitted to PLoS One during a 16-month period in the years 2013 and 2014 (n = 8,138) plotted versus the proportion of PLoS One papers from that same period containing inappropriate image duplication, affiliated with specific countries (n = 348). Each data point represents a country for which 100 or more papers were screened. Some papers were affiliated with more than one country. The blue line represents where data points are expected to fall if problematic papers are distributed as expected according to their representation in the journal. Countries plotted above the blue line had a higher-than-expected proportion of problematic papers; countries plotted below the line had a lower-than-expected ratio.

Supplemental Material

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
  • TABLE S1 

    The 40 journals screened in this study. Table includes publisher, impact factor (Thomson Reuters 2013), number of papers containing the term “western blot” (WB) screened per year, and number of papers with inappropriate image duplication (IDs) found in that year. Table S1, XLSX file, 0.1 MB.

    Copyright © 2016 Bik et al.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

  • Data Set S1 

    Data Set S1, DOCX file, 0.1MB.

    Copyright © 2016 Bik et al.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Supplemental Material
  • Supplementary Data

    Supplementary Data

    • Dataset sd1, DOCX - Dataset sd1, DOCX
    • Table st1, XLSX - Table st1, XLSX
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
The Prevalence of Inappropriate Image Duplication in Biomedical Research Publications
Elisabeth M. Bik, Arturo Casadevall, Ferric C. Fang
mBio Jun 2016, 7 (3) e00809-16; DOI: 10.1128/mBio.00809-16

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this mBio article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Prevalence of Inappropriate Image Duplication in Biomedical Research Publications
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from mBio
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in mBio.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
The Prevalence of Inappropriate Image Duplication in Biomedical Research Publications
Elisabeth M. Bik, Arturo Casadevall, Ferric C. Fang
mBio Jun 2016, 7 (3) e00809-16; DOI: 10.1128/mBio.00809-16
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • DISCUSSION
    • OVERVIEW OF OUR RESEARCH APPROACH
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About mBio
  • Editor in Chief
  • Board of Editors
  • AAM Fellows
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Author Warranty
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #mBio

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Online ISSN: 2150-7511