Question for epidemiologists: in your field, is it acceptable to reverse engineer data out of a figure (left) using Illustrator to generate a nicer version (right) for your paper?
Sources:
who.int/docs/default-s…
zenodo.org/record/5075888…
Sources:
who.int/docs/default-s…
zenodo.org/record/5075888…
The original data cannot be accessed, legend is blurred out, the map itself is highly pixelated.
But would it be better to copy the original figure into one's new paper (with attribution) alongside the reverse-engineered figure so that readers are aware of the 'data' quality?
But would it be better to copy the original figure into one's new paper (with attribution) alongside the reverse-engineered figure so that readers are aware of the 'data' quality?
The authors do clarify in their supplementary (but not main text) that data loss occurred during reverse engineering:
"Map data was manually extracted from Fig 17.. using Adobe Illustrator. Because of multiple overlapping points there will be errors in the extraction process."
"Map data was manually extracted from Fig 17.. using Adobe Illustrator. Because of multiple overlapping points there will be errors in the extraction process."
Because I think if I ever tried to reverse engineer data points out of a blurry volcano plot to generate a figure for my paper, the peer reviewers would have a field day.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
