Re: An alarming amount of (statistical) image manipulation

Posted by rjpalmer on
URL: http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Source-of-Richardson-test-slide-tp593463p593505.html

Search the CONFOCAL archive at http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal

Do you think it reasonable to ask for a 20-page spreadsheet of raw data that was used to create a table, or the mountains of raw data that were analyzed by a particular statistical program, with these requests being based on a desire to "prove" the scientific story as incorrect?   I am still missing the point of reanalysis - just what is intended here? To point out mistakes in data interpretation that may be inferred from the scientific content of the published image?  As you both have noted, the published images in print and on-line are often of poor quality anyway - maybe therein lies your interpretation of the image as conveying inaccurate information?  I maintain that reanalysis of others' published data does not advance science - make your comments in the journal and let the trash-heap of history be the guide to scientific advances rather than turning research into arguments about methodological detail.  Take others' data as they are; show that the scientific conclusions are incorrect by analysis of your own data.

Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal

Hi Robert, Jeremy and All,

I think it is unreasonable not to give electronic access to images that are published in
journal articles. The images in PDF files are ususally JPEG or similar compressed,
and thus corrupted badly, and it is much better to be able to see the uncorrupted original images.

Let us not forget that an image is just a way of visualising a table/matrix of numbers.
If I had a big table of results containing thousands of numbers,
and chose to visualise it as an image then corrupted that image so you can no longer
read the numbers from the image properly, there would appear to be a big problem.
This is what happens with every image published in print and in a PDF.
If a published a table in a paper and made the numbers hard to read or even corrupted them,
that would be unacceptable. Same should be true for images as they are the same as tables.

An image is a table of numbers,
and as a reader I expect to be able to read those numbers correctly,
meaning the reader needs access to uncorrupted/lossy compressed original image data that is sent for publication
(usually non compressed TIFF is requested by journals for images...)

I have often also wanted to analyse image data from a published pdf file
(where no quantitative analysis has been done to measure, for instance colocalisation, as is too often the case)
but there is not point trying because the image is is so badly corrupted by compression that its a waste of time.

Strongly  agree with Jeremy on this one.

Dan White
MPI-CBG    LMF

On Jul 4, 2008, at 6:00 AM, CONFOCAL automatic digest system wrote:

Date:    Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:14:36 +0200
From:    Jeremy Adler <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: An alarming amount of (statistical) image manipulation

Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=3Dconfocal

I must admit to being completely baffled by Robert J. Palmer Jr's =
comments.

When an image is published, and I mean actually printed in a journal, =
and there appears to be a mismatch between the image that the authors' =
have chosen to publish and the numerical data they extract from it, it =
is clearly fair and reasonable, in the first instance to approach the =
authors.
It is possible that limitations of the printing process are to blame or =
that my by eye estimation is wrong or that I have misunderstood the =
methodology.
This is only, and easily, resolvable by examining the original image and =
discussion with the authors.=20

Science is comment based on data.
If the data is dodgy then the comments fall.
Much of the discussion of scientific papers involves technical issues =
about whether an experiment conducted under a (well) described set of =
conditions actually demonstrates what the authors claim, or whether a =

technical flaw renders it all spurious. This is a risk we take whenever =
we publish.

Robert J. Palmer Jr's position appears to be that I am allowed to =
comment on, but that I can't see the(his) data or ask questions about =
his chosen methodology.=20
This obviously precludes my making accurate comments either in my own =
publications or in a letter to a journal editor.


Jeremy Adler
Cell Biology
The Wenner-Gren Inst.
Arrhenius Laboratories E5
Stockholm University
Stockholm 106 91
Sweden

Dr. Daniel James White BSc. (Hons.) PhD
Senior Microscopist / Image Processing and Analysis
Light Microscopy Facility
Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics
Pfotenhauerstrasse 108
01307 DRESDEN
Germany


New Mobile Number!!!

[phone] (German Mobile)
+49  (0)351 210 2627 (Work phone at MPI-CBG)
+49  (0)351 210 1078 (Fax MPI-CBG LMF)

http://www.bioimagexd.net
http://www.chalkie.org.uk
[hidden email]
( [hidden email] )

-- 

Robert J. Palmer Jr., Ph.D.
Natl Inst Dental Craniofacial Res - Natl Insts Health
Oral Infection and Immunity Branch
Bldg 30, Room 310
30 Convent Drive
Bethesda MD 20892
ph 301-594-0025
fax [phone]