Format

Send to

Choose Destination
MBio. 2016 Jun 7;7(3). pii: e00809-16. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00809-16.

The Prevalence of Inappropriate Image Duplication in Biomedical Research Publications.

Author information

1
Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA eliesbik@stanford.edu.
2
Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
3
Departments of Laboratory Medicine and Microbiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA.

Abstract

Inaccurate data in scientific papers can result from honest error or intentional falsification. This study attempted to determine the percentage of published papers that contain inappropriate image duplication, a specific type of inaccurate data. The images from a total of 20,621 papers published in 40 scientific journals from 1995 to 2014 were visually screened. Overall, 3.8% of published papers contained problematic figures, with at least half exhibiting features suggestive of deliberate manipulation. The prevalence of papers with problematic images has risen markedly during the past decade. Additional papers written by authors of papers with problematic images had an increased likelihood of containing problematic images as well. As this analysis focused only on one type of data, it is likely that the actual prevalence of inaccurate data in the published literature is higher. The marked variation in the frequency of problematic images among journals suggests that journal practices, such as prepublication image screening, influence the quality of the scientific literature.

PMID:
27273827
PMCID:
PMC4941872
DOI:
10.1128/mBio.00809-16
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for HighWire Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center