Journal A received a letter from a reader claiming that a figure in a paper published in the journal had appeared in various guises in three other learned publications over the course of 12 years. The origin of the figure was disputed and the reader believed the original source was not the authors. The authors of the paper in Journal A were asked to comment. They refuted the claim. The primary investigators of their institution were prepared to sign a response that stated the figures used in the authors’ works where produced from original work conducted by them, and that they had documentation to support the clinical origins. They thought that any similarity between figures was a consequence of the subject matter under investigation. They requested the name of the reader in order to reserve the right to pursue legal action against him. Although there were similarities between the figures, the editors of Journal A were unable to conclude with certainty that the original figure had been reproduced or modified for subsequent publication by the authors. What should be done now?
_ The figure in question is an autoradiogram, and the background material looks similar in all versions of it, but the position of the cell changes from version to version. It was impossible to ascertain whether the figures were the same or not. _ The authors should submit the original of the autoradiogram and highlight the areas used in the figure. _ If the editor felt he was still unable to judge whether the figures were the same or not, he should submit the data to two independent reviewers. _ The reader who asserts that the figure is his should be asked whether he wants his name to be released to the authors.
One of the other journals involved had already requested the original slide from which the figure had been prepared. The editors were not convinced that this was the original source of the published figure. The editors sought the opinion of an external consultant, and consulted the publisher’s lawyers. And on the basis that the evidence indicated that the figure was reproduced and modified from an article written by other authors, they requested the corresponding author to retract the paper. If a letter of retraction was not received the journal indicated it would take steps to withdraw it. Journal A also asked the corresponding author whether s/he was willing to withdraw the article from Journal A. The corresponding author was not prepared to do this, saying he would prefer to defend the case within a legal framework. The other journal arranged a visit to the author who published a similar figure 12 years earlier, in order to view any original material for the figure. Journal A is awaiting the outcome of that visit. The commission charged with the investigation have completed their report. In the meantime Journal A published a statement, alerting its readers to the serious doubts concerning the published figure; and that the author had voluntarily offered to withdraw the figure in order to guarantee the greatest transparency in his pending legal action. The editors had concluded that that it would not be the proper response to solely retract the challenged portion of the article and called on the institute of the lead author to conduct an investigation.