A whistleblower posted on PubPeer regarding some apparently overlapping images in an article published several years earlier. To the research integrity team there appeared similarities, enough to warrant a request for the original images / raw data from the authors. The authors said they no longer had access to the original data and have denied any editing was made to the images. We commissioned a subject expert, who summarized that the micrographs belong to the same image stack and do not represent cells cultivated on different types of samples. The authors contested this and commissioned their own image specialist, who claims the images are clearly different and not overlapping. We have reached out to the author's institution multiple times and all they've said is "As per the request the student has provided the clarification" - there is no evidence of an investigation having taken place.
Our editor in chief is unwilling to make a final call due to a conflict of interest (one of the authors is a board member on the journal). We have placed an Expression of Concern on the article alerting readers, using the language "potential inaccuracies in figure x". One of the authors has 16 papers on PubPeer with similar allegations of image manipulation.
Question for COPE Council
- Is there anything further we can/should do?
Advice on this case is from a small number of COPE Council Members. Most cases on the COPE website are presented to the COPE Forum where advice is offered by a wider group of COPE Members and COPE Council Members. Advice on individual cases is not formal COPE guidance.
From the description it is clear that the publisher’s research integrity team has reason to question the validity of the data. The authors may disagree, but ultimately it is the journal’s decision.
The journal could publish an Expression of Concern, but under the circumstances described here, best practice would be to consider this as only an interim measure before a final decision is made. Given that the Editor-in-Chief has recused themselves, the final decision could be made by another (senior) editorial board member. Thus the journal could proceed to a retraction if they felt this was the appropriate course of action, following the COPE guidelines for retractions and corrections of the literature.
However, given that there is a difference of opinion between the subject experts engaged by the publisher and by the authors, the publisher may prefer to bring in a third objective opinion. The final decision could then again be made by a senior member of the editorial board in the absence of the Editor in Chief. Ideally the authors would agree on this course of action and to the selected expert for this third opinion.
Finally, the journal may want to consider the position of the author who is also a member of the editorial board if a retraction is issued for image irregularities.