When it comes to image integrity, all papers are equal. But some papers appear more equal than others. A 2017 paper published in Elsevier’s journal Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine that included an image with lots of repetitive elements was not retracted, but instead received only a very mild correction for “an inadvertent mistake for Figure 3,B” (sic). One of the senior authors also happens to be an Associate Editor of the journal, raising questions about whether the investigation could have been carried out in an objective way.Continue reading ““Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine” wins third “This Image Is Fine” Award”
The photos in this paper contain many unexpected repetitive features, both within as well as between the panels. This appeared to be a severe case of photographic editing. So I reported this paper to the journal and the university.
Unfortunately, the University of Illinois just let me know that they will not investigate this case – because it is too old.Continue reading “University of Illinois wins second “This Image Is Fine” Award for Melba Toast paper”
In a new segment on this site, I will start handing out “This Image Is Fine” awards for papers containing images of concern, but where the Editors do not think there is a problem. This first installment of the “This Image Is Fine” award will go to the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC) for deciding that images containing large amounts of duplicated elements are not worth investigating.Continue reading “JACC wins the first “This Image Is Fine” Award”