A review of animal stroke studies found duplicated images in about 40% of examined papers, a red flag for possible fraud. The papers often lacked follow-up research, further undermining confidence in their conclusions. Observers warn such problems can slow medical progress, and separate work suggests up to 15% of cancer papers may be affected as AI use rises. Experts call for improved image screening, transparency, and editorial action to protect research integrity.
Nearly 40% of Reviewed Animal Stroke Papers Contain Duplicated Images — Researchers Warn of Possible Fraud
A review of animal stroke studies found duplicated images in about 40% of examined papers, a red flag for possible fraud. The papers often lacked follow-up research, further undermining confidence in their conclusions. Observers warn such problems can slow medical progress, and separate work suggests up to 15% of cancer papers may be affected as AI use rises. Experts call for improved image screening, transparency, and editorial action to protect research integrity.
21:31, 07.11.2025Science
Study finds widespread image duplication in animal stroke research
Researchers reviewing a set of preclinical studies on animal stroke report that roughly 40% of the papers contained duplicated images — a strong indicator of potential scientific misconduct.
The investigators not only identified repeated figures within and between papers but also noted a worrying lack of follow-up studies that would corroborate the original findings. Together, image duplication and an absence of independent replication raise serious questions about the reliability of the reported results.
Why duplicated images matter: Reusing or duplicating images can allow authors to fabricate experiments or exaggerate the strength of evidence. When such problems go undetected, they undermine trust in the literature and can misdirect subsequent research.
According to reporting in The Scientist, fraudulent or unreliable papers can slow medical progress and delay the development of vital treatments — especially when journals and publishers do not correct the record through corrections or retractions.
Separately, the rise of powerful AI tools has raised concerns about the proliferation of fake science. One recent analysis suggested that as many as 15% of cancer research papers could be problematic or fraudulent, although estimates vary and more research is needed to quantify the scope of the problem.
Implications and responses: Experts say the findings strengthen the case for routine image screening, better data and method sharing, clearer replication efforts, and stronger editorial oversight to protect the integrity of the scientific record.