Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
Hi Robert, Jeremy and All,
I think it is unreasonable not to give electronic access to images
that are published in
journal articles. The images in PDF files are ususally JPEG or similar
compressed,
and thus corrupted badly, and it is much better to be able to see the
uncorrupted original images.
Let us not forget that an image is just a way of visualising a table/
matrix of numbers.
If I had a big table of results containing thousands of numbers,
and chose to visualise it as an image then corrupted that image so you
can no longer
read the numbers from the image properly, there would appear to be a
big problem.
This is what happens with every image published in print and in a PDF.
If a published a table in a paper and made the numbers hard to read or
even corrupted them,
that would be unacceptable. Same should be true for images as they are
the same as tables.
An image is a table of numbers,
and as a reader I expect to be able to read those numbers correctly,
meaning the reader needs access to uncorrupted/lossy compressed
original image data that is sent for publication
(usually non compressed TIFF is requested by journals for images...)
I have often also wanted to analyse image data from a published pdf file
(where no quantitative analysis has been done to measure, for instance
colocalisation, as is too often the case)
but there is not point trying because the image is is so badly
corrupted by compression that its a waste of time.
Strongly agree with Jeremy on this one.
Dan White
MPI-CBG LMF
On Jul 4, 2008, at 6:00 AM, CONFOCAL automatic digest system wrote:
>
> Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:14:36 +0200
> From: Jeremy Adler <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: An alarming amount of (statistical) image manipulation
>
> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=3Dconfocal
>
> I must admit to being completely baffled by Robert J. Palmer Jr's =
> comments.
>
> When an image is published, and I mean actually printed in a
> journal, =
> and there appears to be a mismatch between the image that the
> authors' =
> have chosen to publish and the numerical data they extract from it,
> it =
> is clearly fair and reasonable, in the first instance to approach
> the =
> authors.
> It is possible that limitations of the printing process are to blame
> or =
> that my by eye estimation is wrong or that I have misunderstood the =
> methodology.
> This is only, and easily, resolvable by examining the original image
> and =
> discussion with the authors.=20
>
> Science is comment based on data.
> If the data is dodgy then the comments fall.
> Much of the discussion of scientific papers involves technical
> issues =
> about whether an experiment conducted under a (well) described set
> of =
> conditions actually demonstrates what the authors claim, or whether
> a =
> technical flaw renders it all spurious. This is a risk we take
> whenever =
> we publish.
>
> Robert J. Palmer Jr's position appears to be that I am allowed to =
> comment on, but that I can't see the(his) data or ask questions
> about =
> his chosen methodology.=20
> This obviously precludes my making accurate comments either in my
> own =
> publications or in a letter to a journal editor.
>
>
> Jeremy Adler
> Cell Biology
> The Wenner-Gren Inst.
> Arrhenius Laboratories E5
> Stockholm University
> Stockholm 106 91
> Sweden
Dr. Daniel James White BSc. (Hons.) PhD
Senior Microscopist / Image Processing and Analysis
Light Microscopy Facility
Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics
Pfotenhauerstrasse 108
01307 DRESDEN
Germany
New Mobile Number!!!
+49 (0)15114966933 (German Mobile)
+49 (0)351 210 2627 (Work phone at MPI-CBG)
+49 (0)351 210 1078 (Fax MPI-CBG LMF)
http://www.bioimagexd.net
http://www.chalkie.org.uk
[log in to unmask]
( [log in to unmask] )
|
