{"id":3990,"date":"2022-09-20T13:27:54","date_gmt":"2022-09-20T13:27:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/identifying-problematic-images-tips-and-resources-for-peer-reviewers\/"},"modified":"2026-03-19T11:36:04","modified_gmt":"2026-03-19T06:06:04","slug":"identifying-problematic-images-tips-and-resources-for-peer-reviewers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/identifying-problematic-images-tips-and-resources-for-peer-reviewers","title":{"rendered":"Identifying problematic images: Tips and resources for peer reviewers"},"content":{"rendered":"

Inappropriate image manipulation has become increasingly prevalent in research publishing. Unfortunately, because of the evolution of new technologies that allow such manipulation, this problem is likely to persist for some time. For example, artificial intelligence (AI)-generated deepfakes are the recent addition to the expanding types of falsified images1<\/sup>. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

One silver bullet to address this huge problem is automated assessment of images for authenticity, but we are not there yet. Of course, there has been some progress on how falsified images are detected, with the introduction of novel methods for image forensics, AI\u2013\/machine learning\u2013based tools to detect image duplication2<\/sup>, services provided by data-integrity professionals, etc. But the crucial element in combatting this challenge is still the peer review process.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Role of peer reviewers in upholding research integrity<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Peer reviewers are the first line of defense that can prevent doctored images seeping through published literature. However, in several cases, potentially fraudulent images have escaped the scrutiny of peer review because of lack of either vigilance or skill in identifying problems. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

One such example is the infamous story of Hwang Woo Suk, a veterinarian researcher who was accused of research misconduct and of manipulating images in a stem cell\u2013research article that was published in a major scientific journal3<\/sup>. Grave concerns were raised about potentially fraudulent data slipping through the cracks. Other examples include the controversies surrounding cancer researcher Min-Jean Yin4<\/sup> and immunologist Silvia Bulfone-Paus5<\/sup>, several of whose papers were discovered to have included forged images. Thus, peer reviewers bear an important responsibility identifying such cases and upholding research and publication integrity.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Many cases of problematic images are identified by researchers after papers are published. Some of these researchers\u2014who often also serve as peer reviewers otherwise\u2014have driven research-integrity initiatives and set up companies based on their work. Mike Rossner was one of the earliest pioneers of such initiatives6<\/sup>. More recently, biologist Enrico Bucci detected image duplication and other data errors in a homeopathy study published in Scientific Reports7<\/sup>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

For the research community to detect potentially problematic images early on, peer reviewers need to equip themselves with skills to identify red flags during the review stage itself. Reviewing research that claims major impact on science and society may sometimes overwhelm peer reviewers. Thus, it is especially crucial to perform a robust scrutiny of image data in manuscripts reporting novel path-breaking results, because of the potential harm caused by erroneous claims. This is challenging because reviewers are not always formally trained in such inquiry.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

As research frauds have made their way up to journals with the highest impact factors, discipline-specific expertise is not sufficient to detect these. It is now also important to develop a keen eye for fake images and the ability to judge if the image data provided are reliable enough to support research claims.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Steps to develop skills required to identify problematic images<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

1. Familiarize yourself with journal guidelines<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Many journals provide guidelines on what they consider inappropriate beautification or cutting and stitching of images. Before you review a manuscript, familiarize yourself with the requirements and norms of the journal you are reviewing for.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

2. Learn about the most common types of falsified images<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Elisabeth Bik, an image-integrity expert, describes three major categories of problematic images8<\/sup>:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n