ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2025
How good are medical students and researchers in detecting duplications in digital images from research articles: a cross-sectional survey.
Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInappropriate manipulations of digital images pose significant risks to research integrity. Here we assessed the capability of students and researchers to detect image duplications in biomedical images.
methodsWe conducted a pen-and-paper survey involving medical students who had been exposed to research paper images during their studies, as well as active researchers. We asked them to identify duplications in images of Western blots, cell cultures, and histological sections and evaluated their performance based on the number of correctly and incorrectly detected duplications.
resultsA total of 831 students and 26 researchers completed the survey during 2023/2024 academic year. Out of 34 duplications of 21 unique image parts, the students correctly identified a median of 10 duplications (interquartile range [IQR] = 8-13), and made 2 mistakes (IQR = 1-4), whereas the researchers identified a median of 11 duplications (IQR = 8-14) and made 1 mistake (IQR = 1-3). There were no significant differences between the two groups in either the number of correctly detected duplications (p = .271, Cliff's δ = 0.126) or the number of mistakes (p = .731, Cliff's δ = 0.039). Both students and researchers identified higer percentage of duplications in the Western blot images than cell or tissue images (p < .005 and Cohen's d = 0.72; p < .005 and Cohen's d = 1.01, respectively). For students, gender was a weak predictor of performance, with female participants finding slightly more duplications (p < .005, Cliff's δ = 0.158), but making more mistakes (p < .005, Cliff's δ = 0.239). The study year had no significant impact on student performance (p = .209; Cliff's δ = 0.085).
conclusionsDespite differences in expertise, both students and researchers demonstrated limited proficiency in detecting duplications in digital images. Digital image manipulation may be better detected by automated screening tools, and researchers should have clear guidance on how to prepare digital images in scientific publications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.