I just came across a paper published in a journal (IF < 2), which has used a couple of images without mentioning the source. This itself is not necessarily a problem. But they seem to be from a commercial software product I'm familiar with (they haven't mentioned even the name of the software, though it generated the image), and based on my experience with this software, the image looks to me like it has been tampered with.
Specifically, it is an image where the software predicts properties of a compound which is used to verify the result. Now, let's say some parameter have a cutoff at 0.5% and they are getting 10.3%. To conform to their result they removed the '1', and it become '0.3%'.
Emails to the corresponding author came back empty.
Should I report that to the journal or leave it as it is (may ruin someone's career)?
They have used the image to prove the result of the experiment.
Answer
This could be a big deal and something you should report and, alternatively, it might not be a big deal or reportable. The difference comes in the context.
Are the editted images presented as legitimate data or results that are the raw output of the experiments/research? By which do they say something like "In image blah taken by an electron microscope you can see that the magical unicorn bonds have been created by our process." (Keeping in mind that I know nothing about bio-chem and 'magical unicorn bonds' is a stand in for some actual process). Or in CS something like "Here you can see the robot we built" Statements like this imply or outright state that the object or information in the image is not just representative data but actual results or output. Data like this should not be manipulated or edited except for clarity(circling a targeted area or adding minor labeling).
The other kind of image is a bit rougher. These images can demonstrate what was expected to be seen, abstract output from the research, conceptual information. These kinds of images often are edited or manipulated. Sometimes as a demonstration of what was expected("We would expect magical unicorn bonds to appear after our procedure but instead....") or as an explanation of something more abstract("the robot should follow the optimal path as shown here when it uses the stairs instead of running repeatedly into a wall"). These are things that are no reportable. They can be in poor taste and they absolutely should be caught by reviewers if they imply results beyond the scope of the actual research. But, in some fields, these are the best way to demonstrate expectations, abstract information or background information.
All that being said - when you say the image is from a "commercial software" that makes me wonder if you mean not that it was created with "commercial software" but is actually an image from some commercial source. In this case the image may be copyrighted and it may not be appropriate, at all, to use in this research. This will depend on the image, the source and the 'tampering'. As a counter example to this in the realm of computer vision every uses the standford bunny model in their publication. It's a thing. This is not inappropriate. Someone using an image from a text book, however, or a Google search that they do not own is inappropriate and should be first reported to the PI of the paper and, potentially, the publisher if no action is taken.
No comments:
Post a Comment