A practical path from visual suspicion to device-level evidence Scientific publishing faces a growing crisis of image manipulation and questionable figures. Paper mills, duplicated or altered panels, and post-publication concerns have made image integrity cases more common. Traditional spot-checking of published figures is no longer enough. Labs, journals, research integrity offices, and university counsel need something more concrete than visual inspection alone: evidence that ties a figure back to a real laboratory camera.
Why I’m Convinced Institutional Device Enrollment with PRNU Can Become the Gold Standard for Scientific Integrity
Scientific publishing has a quiet but growing problem. Image manipulation, duplicated figures, and industrial-scale paper mills are eroding trust in the literature. Analyses of millions of cancer research papers have flagged nearly 10% as sharing characteristics with known paper-mill output — sometimes climbing toward 15% in more recent datasets. Retraction rates are rising, yet the true scale of the issue is almost certainly larger than what we currently catch. Traditional peer review