Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
Even though i
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Get off Gary Play man of the dog
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
se
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
What was that say
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

Journals adopt AI to spot duplicated images in manuscripts – Nature (Richard Van Noorden | December 2021)

Posted by Dr Gary Allen in Research Integrity on June 25, 2022
Keywords: Breaches, Institutional responsibilities, Journal, Research Misconduct, Research results, Researcher responsibilities

The Linked Original Item was Posted On December 21, 2021

Friendly positive cute cartoon orange robot with smiling face waving its hand. Chatbot greets. Customer support service chat bot. Robot assistant, online consultant. 3d illustration on blue background

A few publishers are using automated software to catch flaws in submitted papers.

Just before a study appears in any of ten journals published by the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), it undergoes an unusual extra check. Since January 2021, the AACR has been using artificial intelligence (AI) software on all manuscripts it has provisionally accepted after peer review. The aim is to automatically alert editors to duplicated images, including those in which parts have been rotated, filtered, flipped or stretched.

For those people with strong views on AI (that is Artificial Intelligence for the folk with a horticultural background) will either be excited or horrified by the news some journals are using AI to detect duplicated images in papers.  Gary’s household has the three possible attitudes on AI (Gary: Is excited by the potential of people collaborating with smart systems.  Renay: Is horrified by images conjured by popular fiction.  Connar: Believes that we are along way away from genuine general AI).  Given who is writing this commentary, let us just say it is fantastic to see human editors using smart tools to spot when cheats try to use images copied from elsewhere.

The AACR is an early adopter in what could become a trend. Hoping to avoid publishing papers with images that have been doctored — whether because of outright fraud or inappropriate attempts to beautify findings — many journals have hired people to manually scan submitted manuscripts for issues, often using software to help check what they find. But Nature has learnt that in the past year, at least four publishers have started automating the process by relying on AI software to spot duplications and partial duplications before manuscripts are published.

The AACR tried numerous software products before it settled on a service from Proofig, a firm in Rehovot, Israel, says Daniel Evanko, director of journal operations at the association in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “We’re very happy with it,” he adds. He hopes the screening will aid researchers and reduce problems after publication.

Journals adopt AI to spot duplicated images in manuscripts
A few publishers are using automated software to catch flaws in submitted papers.

Related Reading

Journals adopt AI to spot duplicated images in manuscripts – Nature (Richard Van Noorden | December 2021)

(EU) Europe’s Proposed Limits on AI Would Have Global Consequences – WIRED (Will Knight | April 2021)

Where is artificial intelligence taking publishing? – Research Information (Sally Ekanayaka | November 2021)

(China and Australia) Chinese facial recognition scholar ‘ignored questions, went home’ – Times Higher Education (John Ross | )

Can AI be used ethically to assist peer review? – LSE Impact Blog (Alessandro Checco | May 2021)

Should we accept funding for facial recognition research, and other dilemmas?

Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI (Papers: Brent Mittelstadt | November 2020)

The ethical questions that haunt facial-recognition research – Nature (Richard Van Noorden | November 2020)

Digital Ethics in Higher Education: 2020 – BecauseReview (John O’Brien | May 2020)

The battle for ethical AI at the world’s biggest machine-learning conference – Nature (Elizabeth Gibney | January 2020)

Fighting Fiction with Fiction: A novel approach to engaging the public in bioethics of medical research

Ask The Chefs: AI and Scholarly Communications – Scholarly Kitchen (Ann Michael | April 2019)

AI peer reviewers unleashed to ease publishing grind – Science (Douglas Heaven | November 2018)

‘Silicon Valley is ethically lost’: Google grapples with reaction to its new ‘horrifying’ and uncanny AI tech – Financial Post (Mark Bergen | May 2018)

Artificial intelligence in peer review: How can evolutionary computation support journal editors? (Papers: Maciej J. Mrowinski, et al | September 2017)

AI Research is in Desperate Need of an Ethical Watchdog – Wired (Sophia Chen | September 2017)

AI Gaydar Study Gets Another Look – Inside Higher Ed (Colleen Flaherty | September 2017)

Should A.I. Have a Role in Science Publishing? – Science Friday (Adam Marcus | February 2017)

Artificial Intelligence Could Dig Up Cures Buried Online – Wired (Bahar Gholipour | November 2016)

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Links

Complaints against Research Ethics Monthly

Request a Takedown

Submission Guidelines

About the Research Ethics Monthly

About subscribing to the Research Ethics Monthly

A diverse group discussing a topic

Random selected image from the AHRECS library. These were all purchased from iStockPhoto. These are images we use in our workshops and Dr Allen used in the GUREM.

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in