Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 925

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Image forgery detection

Farid, H.·2009·IEEE Signal Processing Magazine

Abstract

We are undoubtedly living in an age where we are exposed to a remarkable array of visual imagery. While we may have historically had confidence in the integrity of this imagery, today's digital technology has begun to erode this trust. From the tabloid magazines to the fashion industry and in mainstream media outlets, scientific journals, political campaigns, courtrooms, and the photo hoaxes that land in our e-mail in-boxes, doctored photographs are appearing with a growing frequency and sophistication. Over the past five years, the field of digital forensics has emerged to help restore some trust to digital images. The author reviews the state of the art in this new and exciting field.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/msp.2008.931079

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 925

Metadata

Authors
Farid, H.
Venue
IEEE Signal Processing Magazine
Published
2009-03
Volume
26
Issue
2
Pages
16-25
ISSN
1053-5888 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2155319953
Cited by
925
References
0
FWCI
54.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Image forgery detection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/msp.2008.931079
The paper
Farid, H. (2009). Image forgery detection. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine. https://doi.org/10.1109/msp.2008.931079

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.