[dabigv13]

I think we're mostly repeating ourselves here. I won't convince you, that's fine.

There is plenty of evidence the above statement is false, as I have pointed out previously. How many people read the CELL paper? Presumably a very large number. How many of them detected the problem? Zero. As far as I know nobody questioned the figures until the computer program pointed out the anomalies. That is pretty good empirical evidence that the software was "necessary" to detect the anomalies. It may be that once one knows there is an anomaly, they may be able to detect it. However, at that point they are looking for a known anomaly, which is much easier.

A random reader may not be able to easily determine a figure is altered, but that's a different question than whether the senior author can determine that. The senior author should be very aware of the underlying data or involved in the experimental collection of that data.

That doesn't mean they need to have seen every blot or immunostain the lab has done. But if it's going in your Cell paper, you should have seen these experiments replicated in your own lab and seen the photos of the gels or blots that will make up those figures. Close familiarity with that data would have enabled an observant PI to catch the manipulation at issue.

If we have independent verification that might mean nobody did anything unethical.

Image manipulation of this kind even if the conclusion is valid is still very unethical.

[dabigv13]

I think we're mostly repeating ourselves here. I won't convince you, that's fine.

There is plenty of evidence the above statement is false, as I have pointed out previously. How many people read the CELL paper? Presumably a very large number. How many of them detected the problem? Zero. As far as I know nobody questioned the figures until the computer program pointed out the anomalies. That is pretty good empirical evidence that the software was "necessary" to detect the anomalies. It may be that once one knows there is an anomaly, they may be able to detect it. However, at that point they are looking for a known anomaly, which is much easier.

A random reader may not be able to easily determine a figure is altered, but that's a different question than whether the senior author can determine that. The senior author should be very aware of the underlying data or involved in the experimental collection of that data.

That doesn't mean they need to have seen every blot or immunostain the lab has done. But if it's going in your Cell paper, you should have seen these experiments replicated in your own lab and seen the photos of the gels or blots that will make up those figures. Close familiarity with that data would have enabled an observant PI to catch the manipulation at issue.

If we have independent verification that might mean nobody did anything unethical.

Image manipulation of this kind even if the conclusion is valid is still very unethical.