8/10/2019 ajb.1400499.full

1/3

1

American Journal of Botany 101(12): 000000, 2014

American Journal of Botany 101(12): 13, 2014; http://www.amjbot.org/ 2014 Botanical Society of America

Science by its nature and in practice requires a balance be-tween trust and skepticism. The latter comes into play as weformulate research questions, analyze our data, and interpretour own scientific results and those of others. Indeed, profes-sional skepticism of the work of others is the basis of criticalassessment of manuscripts and published papers. This articlediscusses the former, trust, specifically the relationship betweentrust and scientific publication with respect to image manipula-tion and representation in published works. On behalf of theAmerican Journal of Botanyeditorial board and staff, I presentour newly updated and revised policy on acceptable manipula-tion of digital images in articles for the American Journal ofBotany.

There are few endeavors where trust is more essential than inscientific publication. Readers of scientific papers start by as-suming the validity of published articles in learned journals.We trust that the authors collected the data carefully and objec-tively, that they analyzed the evidence appropriately and with-out bias, and that they did not only include data that support apreferred outcome. We trust that results of a study are reported

accurately and completely (NAS, 2009), and that relevant evi-dence or ideas generated by other workers are cited fully andfairly (ACS, 2006). If this trust is violated, either inadvertentlyor by intention, the integrity of published research and of indi-vidual researchers is called into question, which may under-mine the publics confidence in scientists and science. Scientificprogress may consequently falter. As individuals engaged inscientific research in service to the public, we therefore have anethical responsibility to maintain the highest integrity in all as-pects of our science and scientific publication (Botanical Soci-ety of America, 1997; Ecological Society of America, 2013 ).

The adoption of comprehensive imaging and image-editingsoftware to prepare digital images of research results representsa dramatic change in the publication process from the days of

manual preparation of illustrations, and it also presents uniqueethical challenges. The traditional techniques and methods survive in hobbyist and art photography circles, but are now largelyobsolete in science. For most of us, image preparation and editing is done with Adobe Photoshop (Adobe Systems, New YorkNew York, USA) or similar software.

The simplicity and efficiency of digital-image editing, andthe resulting image manipulations, make possible the creationof high-resolution and professional-looking illustrations, at lit-tle cost. However, this simplicity also makes it possible andeven tempting to modify or adjust digital images to make themlook better. Some image manipulations are acceptable, if described fully, but other types of modifications and adjustmentsconstitute inappropriate changes to the original data and are categorized as scientific misconduct (Rossner and Yamada, 2004Society for Scholarly Publishing, 2013). Both acceptable andunacceptable image manipulations can now be reliably detectedusing features of the imaging software itself, and the field ofimage forensics has developed to investigate authenticity ofdigital image content (Swaminathan et al., 2008).

Publishers, institutions, and funding agencies go to greatlengths to ensure the ethical conduct of researchers (NAS, 2009European Molecular Biology Organization, 2014; NationaScience Foundation, 2014; Natural Sciences and EngineeringResearch Council Canada, 2014; ORI, 2014) and the integrityof scientific literature (COPE, 2014; CSE, 2014;Nature, 2014Royal Society Publishing, 2014). Nonetheless, the ultimate re-sponsibility for integrity in published science lies with authorsreviewers, editors, and readers (ACS, 2006; Hammes, 2006).

Many resources are available to guide authors on best practices in the preparation of digital images (e.g., COPE, 2014NAS, 2009; CSE, 2014;Nature, 2014; ORI, 2014). These explain and illustrate acceptable digital manipulations, and how to

identify and report unacceptable ones. The essential principlesof best practice should include the following elements: (1) Au-thors should understand what constitutes acceptable image datamanipulation. (2) Authors should document and report exactlyhow images were manipulated and also state when they werenot manipulated. (3) All authors of a paper should review finaimages in a manuscript prior to submission for peer review andcompare these with the original images to ensure that the visuaresults are accurately reported. (4) Reviewers should familiarize themselves with acceptable vs. unacceptable image data

1Manuscript received 15 November 2014; revision accepted 17 November2014.

The author thanks S. Balcomb, S. Graham, K. Koster, A. McPherson,L. Williams (Executive Editor of The Journal of Cell Biology), and C. Bennett(Publication Ethics Manager of the American Physiological Society) forhelpful comments and discussions.

2E-mail: jjernstedt@botany.org

doi:10.3732/ajb.1400499

EDITORIAL

TRUSTANDSCIENTIFICPUBLICATION:

AJB POLICYFORDIGITALIMAGES1

JUDYJERNSTEDT, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF2

Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, One Shields Ave., Davis, California 95616-8780 USA

Key words: digital images; image editing; image manipulation; publication ethics.

http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/doi/10.3732/ajb.1400499The latest version is atAJB Advance Article published on December 3, 2014, as 10.3732/ajb.1400499.

Copyright 2014 by the Botanical Society of America

http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/doi/10.3732/ajb.1400499http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/doi/10.3732/ajb.1400499http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/doi/10.3732/ajb.1400499http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/doi/10.3732/ajb.1400499

8/10/2019 ajb.1400499.full

2/3

2 AMERICANJOURNALOFBOTANY [Vol. 101

fields, or exposures, must be made explicit by the arrange-ment of the figure (i.e., using dividing lines) and in the fig-ure legend text.

Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or color balance are ac-ceptable if they are applied to every pixel in the image and aslong as this does not obscure, eliminate, or misrepresent any

information present in the original image, including thebackground.

Nonlinear adjustments (e.g., changes to gamma settings,changes in color balance or tonal range based on thresholdsettings) must be explained in the Materials and Methods.

Questions about a manuscript raised during or after review orpublication will be referred to the Editor-in-Chief, who will re-quest the original data from the authors for comparison with theprepared figures and who may refer the matter to the Publica-tion Ethics Subcommittee of the AJB Editorial Board. If theoriginal digital image data cannot be produced by an authorwhen asked to provide it, the manuscript may be rejected or ac-ceptance of the manuscript may be revoked. When the manipu-

lation affects the interpretation of the data, the manuscript willbe rejected or prior acceptance will be revoked. Cases of sus-pected misconduct may also be reported to an authors homeinstitution or funding agency, following procedures recom-mended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/) or, for U.S. authors, re-ferred to the Office of Research Integrity (http://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/RIandImages/default.html ).

We hope that these clear and explicit rules will assist authorsas they prepare high-quality illustrations for submission.

LITERATURE CITED

ACS [AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY]. 2006. ACS style guide. Websitehtttp://pubs.acs.org/isbn/9780841239999 [accessed 31 October 2014].

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY. 2014. Instructions for authors: Imagemanipulation. Website http://www.amjbot.org/site/misc/ifora.xhtml#illustrations [accessed 11 November 2014].

BOTANICAL SOCIETY OFAMERICA. 1997. Guidelines for professional eth-ics. Website http://botany.org/governance/ethics.php [accessed 11November 2014].

COPE [COMMITTEEONPUBLICATIONETHICS]. 2014. Resources and guide-lines. Website http://publicationethics.org/resources [accessed 11November 2014].

CSE [COUNCILOFSCIENCEEDITORS]. 2014. CSEs White paper on publica-tion ethics. Website http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/ [accessed24 October 2014].

CROMEY, D. W. 2010. Avoiding twisted pixels: Ethical guidelines for theappropriate use and manipulation of scientific digital images. Scienceand Engineering Ethics16: 639667.

ECOLOGICALSOCIETY OFAMERICA. 2013. Code of ethics. Website http://www.esa.org/esa/about/governance/esa-code-of-ethics/ [accessed 11November 2014].

EDITORIAL POLICY COMMITTEE. 2012. CSEs White paper on promotingintegrity in scientific journal publications, 2012 update. Council ofScience Editors, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, USA. Available at http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/wp-content/uploads/entire_whitepaper.pdf [accessed 18 November 2014].

EUROPEANMOLECULARBIOLOGYORGANIZATION. 2014. Responsible conductof research. Website http://www.embo.org/science-policy/responsible-conduct-of-research [accessed 11 November 2014].

manipulations to be able to critically assess the quality of imagedata in the manuscripts that they are reviewing. (5) Editorsshould independently evaluate image data while taking into ac-count the assessments of reviewers. If needed, editors shouldask for additional information from authors (Cromey, 2010;Editorial Policy Committee, 2012; CSE, 2014).

Individual journals and publishers have taken slightly differentroutes for codifying specific guidelines for computer-generatedimages. Some publishers devise their own, while others haveadopted guidelines formulated by other bodies (Rossner andYamada, 2004; CSE, 2014). We believe that the most comprehen-sive current guidelines for digital image editing and presentationin journals are those of The Journal of Cell Biology(JCB), pub-lished by Rockefeller University Press (JCB, 2014), now used bymany journals (Editorial Policy Committee, 2012; CSE, 2014).As a publisher of large numbers of manuscripts containing imagedata (i.e., micrographs, gels, blots, tomograms) and a long-standingreputation for image reproduction of the highest quality,JCBdeveloped explicit and detailed policies to ensure the integrity ofpublished digital images (JCB, 2014).

We believe that the standards and prohibitions described inthe JCBguidelines should be common practice, and commonsense, for all authors contributing to the American Journal ofBotany.We are therefore adopting JCBeditorial policies andguidelines for image manipulation, with permission of TheJournal of Cell BiologyEditorial Office (Rockefeller Univer-sity Press; http://jcb.rupress.org/). The following guidelines ex-pand upon our current policies for figure construction anddigital manipulations (American Journal of Botany, 2014). Ourgoal is to enable authors to do the right thing, to help authors tounderstand what constitutes permissible image manipulationfor optimal and accurate presentation of their data, and to avoidquestionable or unacceptable image manipulations. Our ex-plicit aim is to avoid situations in which the validity of the data,

or the integrity of the author, is called into question. Adherenceto these guidelines by all prospective authors will ensure thatthe final published work merits the full trust placed in it byother scientists and by the broader public.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS

Image manipulationThe following expanded guidelinesare adopted to inform prospective authors of the expectationsfor acceptable presentation of digital images inAJBand to ex-plain the specific permissible manipulations and adjustments ofdigital image data (available at http://www.amjbot.org/site/misc/ifora.xhtml). All digital images in manuscripts submitted

for review will be examined at multiple stages to assurethat recognized best practices are followed for digital imagepreparation.

Images that will be compared with each other must be ac-quired and processed under the same conditions.

No specific feature within an image may be enhanced, ob-scured, moved, removed, or introduced.

The grouping of images from different parts of the samemicrograph or gel, or from different micrographs or gels,

http://www.amjbot.org/site/misc/ifora.xhtml#illustrationshttp://www.amjbot.org/site/misc/ifora.xhtml#illustrationshttp://www.councilscienceeditors.org/wp-content/uploads/entire_whitepaper.pdfhttp://www.councilscienceeditors.org/wp-content/uploads/entire_whitepaper.pdfhttp://www.councilscienceeditors.org/wp-content/uploads/entire_whitepaper.pdfhttp://www.amjbot.org/site/misc/ifora.xhtmlhttp://www.amjbot.org/site/misc/ifora.xhtmlhttp://www.amjbot.org/site/misc/ifora.xhtmlhttp://www.councilscienceeditors.org/wp-content/uploads/entire_whitepaper.pdfhttp://www.amjbot.org/site/misc/ifora.xhtml#illustrations

8/10/2019 ajb.1400499.full

3/3

JERNSTEDTAJBPOLICYFORDIGITALIMAGES 3December 2014]

HAMMES, G. G. 2006. Ethics in scientific publication.InA. Coghill and L.R. Garson, The ACS style guide, 316. American Chemical Society,Washington, D.C., USA.

JCB [JOURNALOFCELLBIOLOGY]. 2014. Image presentation. Website http://jcb.rupress.org/site/misc/print.xhtml#digim [accessed 11 November2014].

NAS [NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES]. 2009. On being a scientist:A guide to responsible conduct in research, 3rd ed. Committee on

Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. The National AcademiesPress, Washington, D.C., USA. Website http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12192#toc [accessed 24 October 2014].

NATIONALSCIENCEFOUNDATION. 2014. Responsible conduct of research.Website http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/rcr.jsp [accessed 11November 2014].

NATURAL SCIENCES AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH COUNCIL CANADA. 2014.Responsible conduct of research. Website http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/governance-gouvernance/rcr-crr_eng.asp [ac-cessed 11 November 2014].

NATURE. 2014. Publication ethics. Website http://www.nature.com/authorspolicies/publication.html [accessed 11 November 2014].

ORI [OFFICEOFRESEARCHINTEGRITY]. 2014. Online learning tool for research integrity and image processing. Website http://ori.hhs.goveducation/products/RIandImages/default.html [accessed 11 Novembe2014].

ROSSNER, M., ANDK. M. YAMADA. 2004. Whats in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation.Journal of Cell Biology166: 1115.

ROYALSOCIETYPUBLISHING. 2014. Publishing policy and ethics. Websitehttp://royalsocietypublishing.org/ethics-and-policy [accessed 11November 2014].

SOCIETYFORSCHOLARLYPUBLISHING. 2013. The scholarly kitchen [onlineblog]. Website http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/11/interviewwith-mike-rossner-on-scientific-integrity-making-research-data-publiclyavailable-and-routes-to-open-access/ [accessed 11 November 2014].

SWAMINATHAN, A., M. WU, AND K. J. R. LIU. 2008. Digital image forensics via intrinsic fingerprints. IEEE Transactions on InformationForensics and Security3: 101117.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12192#tochttp://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12192#tochttp://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/governance-gouvernance/rcr-crr_eng.asphttp://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/governance-gouvernance/rcr-crr_eng.asphttp://www.nature.com/authors/policies/publication.htmlhttp://www.nature.com/authors/policies/publication.htmlhttp://www.nature.com/authors/policies/publication.htmlhttp://www.nature.com/authors/policies/publication.htmlhttp://www.nature.com/authors/policies/publication.htmlhttp://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/RIandImages/default.htmlhttp://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/RIandImages/default.htmlhttp://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/11/interviewwith-mike-rossner-on-scientific-integrity-making-research-data-publiclyavailable-and-routes-to-open-access/http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/11/interviewwith-mike-rossner-on-scientific-integrity-making-research-data-publiclyavailable-and-routes-to-open-access/http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/11/interviewwith-mike-rossner-on-scientific-integrity-making-research-data-publiclyavailable-and-routes-to-open-access/http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/11/interviewwith-mike-rossner-on-scientific-integrity-making-research-data-publiclyavailable-and-routes-to-open-access/http://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/RIandImages/default.htmlhttp://www.nature.com/authors/policies/publication.htmlhttp://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/governance-gouvernance/rcr-crr_eng.asphttp://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12192#toc