The prevalence of inappropriate image duplication in biomedical research publications

mBio

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2016, Pages

  Bik, Elisabeth M ^a   Casadevall, Arturo ^b,c   Fang, Ferric C ^d  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^c JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ALTERATION DUPLICATION; ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; DATA ANALYSIS; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE DISPLAY; IMAGE DUPLICATION; IMAGE QUALITY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; REPOSITIONING DUPLICATION; REPRODUCIBILITY; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SCIENTIST; SIMPLE DUPLICATION; TREND STUDY; HUMAN; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; PUBLISHING; STANDARDS;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DATA ACCURACY; HUMANS; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PUBLISHING;

EID: 84979030917     PISSN: 21612129     EISSN: 21507511     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1128/mBio.00809-16     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Casadevall A, Steen RG, Fang FC. 2014. Sources of error in the retracted scientific literature. FASEB J 28: 3847-3855. http://dx.doi.org/10.1096/fj.14-256735.
2. Steneck NH. 2006. Fostering integrity in research: definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Sci Eng Ethics 12: 53-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0006-y.
3. Fanelli D. 2009. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One 4: e5738. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.
4. Lüscher TF. 2013. The codex of science: honesty, precision, and truth-and its violations. Eur Heart J 34: 1018-1023. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/eht063.
5. Geison GL. 1996. The private science of Louis Pasteur illustrated, revised. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
6. Alberts B, Cicerone RJ, Fienberg SE, Kamb A, McNutt M, Nerem RM, Schekman R, Shiffrin R, Stodden V, Suresh S, Zuber MT, Pope BK, JamiesonKH. 2015. Scientific integrity. Self-correction in science at work. Science 348: 1420-1422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aab3847.
7. Steen RG, Casadevall A, Fang FC. 2013. Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS One 8: e68397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068397.
8. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. 2012. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109: 17028-17033. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109.
9. Begley CG, Ellis LM. 2012. Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483: 531-533. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/483531a.
10. Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K. 2011. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discov 10: 712. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrd3439-c1.
11. Open Science Collaboration. 2015. Psychology. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349: aac4716. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716.
12. Flaherty DK. 2011. The vaccine-autism connection: a public health crisis caused by unethical medical practices and fraudulent science. Ann Pharmacother 45: 1302-1304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1345/aph.1Q318.
13. Bowen A, Casadevall A. 2015. Increasing disparities between resource inputs and outcomes, as measured by certain health deliverables, in biomedical research. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112: 11335-11340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1504955112.
14. Rossner M, Yamada KM. 2004. What’s in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation. J Cell Biol 166: 11-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1083/jcb.200406019.
15. Ioannidis JP. 2005. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2: e124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.
16. Collins FS, Tabak LA. 2014. Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature 505: 612-613. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/505612a.
17. RossnerM. 2002. Figure manipulation: assessing what is acceptable. J Cell Biol 158: 1151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1083/jcb.200209084.
18. Pulverer B. 2014. EMBO Press-a new way to publish. EMBO J 33: 1-2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/embj.201387566.
19. Fanelli D, Costas R, Larivière V. 2015. Misconduct policies, academic culture and career stage, not gender or pressures to publish, affect scientific integrity. PLoS One 10: e0127556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127556.
20. Anderson MS, Ronning EA, De Vries R, Martinson BC. 2007. The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Sci Eng Ethics 13: 437-461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9042-5.
21. Fang FC, Casadevall A. 2011. Retracted science and the retraction index. Infect Immun 79: 3855-3859. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/IAI.05661-11.
22. Cokol M, Iossifov I, Rodriguez-Esteban R, Rzhetsky A. 2007. How many scientific papers should be retracted? EMBO Rep 8: 422-423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400970.
23. Liu SV. 2006. Top journals’ top retraction rates. Sci Ethics 1: 91-93. http://im1.biz/TopRetraction.pdf.
24. Yidong G, Xin H. 2006. Research ethics. China’s Science Ministry fires a barrage of measures at misconduct. Science 312: 1728a-1729a. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.312.5781.1728a.
25. Patnaik PR. 2015. Scientific misconduct in India: causes and perpetuation. Sci Eng Ethics. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9677-6.
26. Oksvold MP. 2016. Incidence of data duplications in a randomly selected pool of life science publications. Sci Eng Ethics 22: 487-496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9668-7.
27. Zou X, Sorenson BS, Ross KF, Herzberg MC. 2013. Augmentation of epithelial resistance to invading bacteria by using mRNA transfections. Infect Immun 81: 3975-3983. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/IAI.00539-13.
28. Zou X, Sorenson BS, Ross KF, Herzberg MC. 2015. Correction for Zou et al., augmentation of epithelial resistance to invading bacteria by using mRNA transfections. Infect Immun 83: 1226-1227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/IAI.02991-14.
29. + current and resultant neurotoxic activity. PLoS One 8: e64904. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064904.
30. PLoS One Staff. 2014. Correction: HIV-1 Tat protein increases microglial outward K+ current and resultant neurotoxic activity. PLoS One 9: e109218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0109218.
31. Liu Y, Liu Y, Sun C, Gan L, Zhang L, Mao A, Du Y, Zhou R, Zhang H. 2014. Carbon ion radiation inhibits glioma and endothelial cell migration induced by secreted VEGF. PLoS One 9: e98448. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098448.
32. Liu Y, Liu Y, Sun C, Gan L, Zhang L, Mao A, Du Y, Zhou R, Zhang H. 2015. Correction: carbon ion radiation inhibits glioma and endothelial cell migration induced by secreted VEGF. PLoS One 10: e0135508. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135508.
33. Pulloor NK, Nair S, McCaffrey K, Kostic AD, Bist P, Weaver JD, Riley AM, Tyagi R, Uchil PD, York JD, Snyder SH, García-Sastre A, Potter BV, Lin R, Shears SB, Xavier RJ, Krishnan MN. 2014. Human genomewide RNAi screen identifies an essential role for inositol pyrophosphates in type-I interferon response. PLoS Pathog 10: e1003981. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1003981.
34. PLoS Pathogens Staff. 2014. Correction: human genome-wide RNAi screen identifies an essential role for inositol pyrophosphates in type-I interferon response. PLoS Pathog 10: e1004519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1004519.
35. Xu X, Liu T, Zhang A, Huo X, Luo Q, Chen Z, Yu L, Li Q, Liu L, Lun ZR, Shen J. 2012. Reactive oxygen species-triggered trophoblast apoptosis is initiated by endoplasmic reticulum stress via activation of caspase-12, CHOP, and the JNK pathway in Toxoplasma gondii infection in mice. Infect Immun 80: 2121-2132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/IAI.06295-11.
36. Xu X, Liu T, Zhang A, Huo X, Luo Q, Chen Z, Yu L, Li Q, Liu L, Lun Z, Shen J. 2015. Retraction for Xu et al., reactive oxygen species-triggered trophoblast apoptosis is initiated by endoplasmic reticulum stress via activation of caspase-12, CHOP, and the JNK pathway in Toxoplasma gondii infection in mice. Infect Immun 83: 1735. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/IAI.00118-15.
37. Friedman-Levi Y, Mizrahi M, Frid K, Binyamin O, Gabizon R. 2013. PrP(ST), a soluble, protease resistant and truncated PrP form features in the pathogenesis of a genetic prion disease. PLoS One 8: e69583. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069583.
38. Friedman-Levi Y, Mizrahi M, Frid K, Binyamin O, Gabizon R. 2015. Correction: PrPST, a soluble, protease resistant and truncated PrP form features in the pathogenesis of a genetic prion disease. PLoS One 10: e0133911. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133911.