(1) An article was published after peer review. Shortly after online publication we received a message from a reader (an academic who works in the same field as the authors) notifying us of a major concern with one of the figures in the article.
“我在写作最近发表在xxx的稿件xxx。这些研究提高了XXX患者的重要预期，因为所提出的策略在XXX的临床前模型中取得了意想不到的治疗成功。
I am writing because I’ve noticed a major problem in Figure X. It appears that two of the panels (X and X), which are supposed to be representative of two different XX specimens from two different experimental groups, belong to the same tissue section (or quasi-identical serial sections)....However, the major problem in this figure is that the two panels are only partially identical. ...These observations raise the concern that the pictures have been intentionally manipulated, and I believe that this concern should be brought to your attention.”
（2）我们联系了作者而不揭示有关读者的身份，而不是暗示任何判决：
我们的一个读者已经注意到你论文中的一个数字（见下文）潜在的问题，并且在决定如何回应之前我想获得输入。
“我在写作最近发表在xxx的稿件xxx。这些研究提高了XXX患者的重要预期，因为所提出的策略在XXX的临床前模型中取得了意想不到的治疗成功。
I am writing because I’ve noticed a major problem in Figure X. It appears that two of the panels (X and X), which are supposed to be representative of two different XX specimens from two different experimental groups, belong to the same tissue section (or quasi-identical serial sections)....However, the major problem in this figure is that the two panels are only partially identical.”
(3) The authors responded initially by sending higher resolution images saying:
Please find the attached fig. X. At original magnification it is obvious that the problematic 2 panels are taken from different samples. We are happy to send the original pictures.
（4）我们询问我们的一名编辑委员会成员，在科学领域以及数字成像中有相关的专业知识，以便在信心地看看更高分辨率的图像。他回答了以下内容：
“If the claim is that the three photos of Fig. X represent different samples I would in indeed have a problem with that. Same elements look identical. Difficult to prove though as there are larger parts that differ. Nevertheless, that concerned reader may have a point. I am suspicious, too, that the figures have been manipulated.”
（5）我们回到作者要求使用以下消息的原始数字图像：
我已将您的高分辨率版本转发给最初表示关切的人员，并收到了该消息，其中人指出他/她的担忧。然后，我将高分辨率图像发送给我们具有神经病理学和数字图像经验的常规顾问之一。这个人同意，图XB的下部两个面板的部分看起来非常相似，我们应该要求查看图X中的所有三个面板的原件，并获取有关使用哪些软件的详细信息以及图像是否在任何内容上进行数字操作。方式。
因此，我现在要求您发送原始图像和您拥有的任何相关信息。
(6)应答ded by sending three images and the following:
Please find the attached requested original images. Adobe Photoshop was used to reduce brightness, increase contrast and compress the images to JPEG format. The JPEG images were inserted into Powerpoint file where borders of the tumours were marked. No additional manipulations were made to the original images. Please let me know if you need any additional information.
（7）我们要求我们的生产人员看原件，他们觉得没有更好的证据表明图像来自不同的样本。我再次回到作者，让他们有机会告诉我们更多：
“I have now shown the images to several people who know more about digital image generation and processing than I do. All of them find that the striking similarities between groups of cells in the middle and low panels make it hard to believe that the two images come from different tumors (as is implied in the figure legend and your earlier messages).
因为我们能够轻易解决这个问题，我们需要进行更正式的调查（最有可能在PLO之外的人们的帮助）。如果您可以提供任何其他信息，请通过xxx来执行此操作。
我很遗憾为我们所有人造成的不便，但我们觉得我们必须认真对待这个问题。“
(8) To this the authors responded:
“I find this conclusion rather odd and not in accordance to our laboratory protocols. I can assure you that we shall cooperate in any way you see fit and our records on the study are open.”
and, in a separate message a few hours later:
“I am looking again at these pictures. If you carefully study the images you will find that almost all the fields are different and there is no similarity at all. You always can find groups of cells, with a bit of imagination you can make them look similar. I can assure you that all this study is fully controlled and the reproducibility is excellent. We now have even results with the systemic application of the XXX vector to disseminated tumors. I find it hard to believe that I am going to be under investigation questioning my scientific integrity.”
（9）然后，我们从一个不同的日记中招募了一个编辑的编辑的机密帮助，谁是一个关于操纵数字图像的专家，并具有可以寻找特定更改的软件。我们还没有听过他的消息。
What do we do if he (the editor from a different journal) tells us that he has detected manipulation beyond what the authors said they did?
如果他说没有证据这些图像的证据，我们该怎么办？
如果他说他无法确认任何一种方式，我们该怎么办？
More generally, have we handled this process appropriately thus far?
It was agreed that the handling of the matter to date had been exemplary in the editor’s careful and considered approach. With all parties, except for the authors, feeling that some sort of manipulation had taken place with the figure, the only remaining course of action was for the editor to write to the author’s institution and raise the concerns with them.
The author’s institution was contacted and the editor forwarded all relevant correspondence with the author and, in anonymised fashion, correspondence with the scientists who brought this to their attention. The rector of the author's university has assured the editor that they take this seriously, have asked that the journal take no further action while they are investigating and will inform the journal of the outcome.