Comments on: The perils of doctoring images

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 08:11:03 +0000

e.g. just above the arrow:

http://www.plosone.org/article/showImageLarge.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003300.g006

By: Alexey Balyabo

Alexey Balyabo — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:41:17 +0000

You don't understand, Michael!
Instead of investigations and research they were forging the images.
They get money paid for their job. That's quite disguisting to hear.
Hope they will be punished.

By: Michael Smih

Michael Smih — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:31:17 +0000

Every journal uses Photoshop. So what?
What is unethical you find in that?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 04:50:45 +0000

I agree. Don’t the journals doctor the artsy photos on the journal cover? Is that unethical or is it just sharp presentation? Some poorer labs have crappy cameras to take pictures of film. By the time you convert to jpg and then add to the figure, you need to restore the overall clarity of the image. You lose resolution in those steps.

If I wanted to cheat, there are much faster and easier ways than spending an entire day making publication quality figures.

By: Brian Daw

Brian Daw — Fri, 30 May 2008 10:58:27 +0000

Quackery and fraud are rife in scientific circles. Would u put your trust in them?

By: Steve Smith

Steve Smith — Fri, 30 May 2008 05:51:30 +0000

I think ‘doctored’ images should be allowed if labeled and the corresponding raw image is equally available.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 30 May 2008 01:41:33 +0000

So she fakes some images but the research was valid? Who gives a fuck about the images?