Re: An alarming amount of (statistical) image manipulation

Posted by Jeremy Adler on
URL: http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Source-of-Richardson-test-slide-tp593463p593506.html

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

Dear Robert
 
you agree that there may be real differences between an image as published and the original.
But then argue that is it unreasonable to ask to see the original.
 
The original image/data may well entirely justify an author's conclusions and dispel any doubts that someone reading the article may raise. Doubts dispelled and clarity increased, surely a big plus for the authors.
It is also possible that on occasions the problem may be real and the image/data does not bear examination.
 
The whole point is to resolve issues quickly and efficiently, allowing good work to thrive.
 
Your alternative seems to require that I either create a big fuss by writing to the journal editor or repeat the study myself. Both highly inefficient ways of resolving what maybe a trivial misundertanding.
 
 
 
Jeremy Adler
Cell Biology
The Wenner-Gren Inst.
Arrhenius Laboratories E5
Stockholm University
Stockholm 106 91
Sweden

________________________________

From: Confocal Microscopy List on behalf of Robert J. Palmer Jr.
Sent: Fri 7/4/2008 13:39
To: [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=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]