ideasIdea

Deposit the raw blots, gels and microscopy images behind every figure

Published figures are cropped and processed. Requiring the original, uncropped image files to be deposited lets anyone check that the figure shows what it claims.

Western blot and microscopy figures are the most common site of error and manipulation in biomedical papers. Some journals now request uncropped blots as supplementary files; deposit in a public repository with checksums and metadata (instrument, exposure, processing steps) would make verification and re-analysis possible and would deter selective cropping and splicing.

Hypothesis

Mandatory raw image deposit reduces image-related corrections and retractions at adopting journals by at least half over five years relative to non-adopting journals.

Rationale

Sequencing data deposit became universal within a decade of being mandated and enabled a generation of re-analysis; imaging data can follow.

What would test it

Two journals mandate deposit; audit a random sample for compliance and for discrepancies between raw and published images; track corrections.

Maturity

early clinical

Who has to act

policy

Cost to try

Small (under $1M)

Years to first evidence

Bottlenecks it attacks

Preclinical results do not reproduce · Fewer than half of landmark cancer biology findings reproduce when someone else tries.

Connected

5top

Pages like this

not linked directly; found by shared links

ideas

Journals check that data links actually work, and flag papers whose data vanish Random audits of published, funded research, like tax audits Run automated statistics and image checks on every cancer manuscript before review Time-stamped electronic lab notebooks submitted with the paper

bottlenecks

Preclinical results do not reproduce