[BostonCard]

2001....  21 years ago (probably submitted a year before that).  In those days, just getting a paper into the right format for a journal was a feat.  I can imagine getting graphics so they print right was also a challenge. For instance, different monitors & printers would show (or not show) different colors.   I get the sense that some people have a new tool (image manipulation detection) and are assuming that any manipulation is for the purposes of falsifying results.  If someone published the same data without the accompanying image, I guess they get a pass.   However, I haven't read any details on this particular concern, so I don't know what corroborating or contradicting evidence there is that the data isn't legitimate.

This is beyond simply adjusting the contrast and brightness to make it look better or easier to read.  This would be akin to opening photoshop and using the eraser or stamp tool. The question was whether those tools were used to delete the equivalent of a photobombed on the background or smoothing some wrinkles or the equivalent of erasing an ex from a picture of you as a couple or adding the Eiffel Tower to the background of a photo to claim you were in Paris.  The analysis shows that it was highly likely the image was manipulated; it can’t tell you the motivation and whether it changed the underlying results.  Only a full investigation can do that.

BC

[BostonCard]

2001....  21 years ago (probably submitted a year before that).  In those days, just getting a paper into the right format for a journal was a feat.  I can imagine getting graphics so they print right was also a challenge. For instance, different monitors & printers would show (or not show) different colors.   I get the sense that some people have a new tool (image manipulation detection) and are assuming that any manipulation is for the purposes of falsifying results.  If someone published the same data without the accompanying image, I guess they get a pass.   However, I haven't read any details on this particular concern, so I don't know what corroborating or contradicting evidence there is that the data isn't legitimate.

This is beyond simply adjusting the contrast and brightness to make it look better or easier to read.  This would be akin to opening photoshop and using the eraser or stamp tool. The question was whether those tools were used to delete the equivalent of a photobombed on the background or smoothing some wrinkles or the equivalent of erasing an ex from a picture of you as a couple or adding the Eiffel Tower to the background of a photo to claim you were in Paris.  The analysis shows that it was highly likely the image was manipulated; it can’t tell you the motivation and whether it changed the underlying results.  Only a full investigation can do that.

BC