[M T]

And yes, the editorial talks about mistakes and errors, when the "charge" is fradulent intentional image manipulation. I guess they didn't want to be so explicit about what they were willing to defend.

Perhaps we should be careful of our terms.  You seem to be saying there is a charge (by whom?) of fraudulent image manipulation.  (I removed "intentional" as redundant since I don't believe fraud, at least as used in normal discourse, can exist without intent.)   I would take "fraudulent" to mean with intent to misrepresent the evidence for some purpose.

I have seen the case for intentional image manipulation, but I haven't seen any serious discussion that claimed fraud.  Yet you speak of it like some official has made this charge. Who is making "the charge" of "fraudulent intentional image manipulation."  Which images in which papers?

[M T]

And yes, the editorial talks about mistakes and errors, when the "charge" is fradulent intentional image manipulation. I guess they didn't want to be so explicit about what they were willing to defend.

Perhaps we should be careful of our terms.  You seem to be saying there is a charge (by whom?) of fraudulent image manipulation.  (I removed "intentional" as redundant since I don't believe fraud, at least as used in normal discourse, can exist without intent.)   I would take "fraudulent" to mean with intent to misrepresent the evidence for some purpose.

I have seen the case for intentional image manipulation, but I haven't seen any serious discussion that claimed fraud.  Yet you speak of it like some official has made this charge. Who is making "the charge" of "fraudulent intentional image manipulation."  Which images in which papers?