ArticlemBio2025
ASM incorporates Imagetwin to address image duplication and preserve scientific accuracy.
Article in mBio, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence to enhance research integrity in evidence-based medicine: toward scalable trustworthiness assessment.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Image duplication in scientific articles-accidental or intentional-undermines trust in research, authors, institutions, and publishers. Duplications not only cast doubt on researchers' scientific rigor, but they also raise concerns about potential misconduct, jeopardizing careers and even calling into question the effectiveness of the peer review process and editorial oversight. Ultimately, these issues erode confidence in the published study and, more broadly, the entire scientific community. However, when combined with expert in-house staff verification and artificial intelligence-based tools like Imagetwin, Proofig, etc., publishers can detect potential image duplications before publication and strengthen the integrity of the scientific record. In 2023, the American Society for Microbiology (ASM) Journals program integrated Imagetwin into its editorial workflow and conducted a 1-year pilot study. Here, we present key findings and highlight how ASM Journals refined its processes to incorporate image duplication screening earlier in the manuscript lifecycle. The pilot identified image duplications prior to publication in 3.9% of accepted, eligible manuscripts screened with Imagetwin. Most image concerns were unintentional and readily resolved. Of the 2,627 accepted manuscripts screened during the pilot, acceptance was revoked for six (0.23%) due to unresolved issues. It is now a key component of the routine ethics checks performed by ASM journals.
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.