Is it acceptable that ieee.org posts an article with a faked photo?
The article refers to it as an "image" (as opposed to a raw source photo) that it clearly states is the result of "image processing".
It's common practice in science to produce such representative images, e.g. in a lot of astronomy, space photgraphy, and things like SEMs
"Photo: Chongqing University
Two cotton leaves grown in the Chang’e-4 lander on the far side of the moon."
I see no such statement, clearly or otherwise.
It's common practice in science to produce such representative images
Maybe this is one reason why a growing number of people don't believe scientists anymore.
"Representative images" sounds like the fine print in a used car ad.
"Image processing has now shown that two cotton leaves had grown—rather than just one as initially thought—in what was the first biological growth experiment on the moon."
Two cotton leaves grown in the Chang’e-4 lander on the far side of the moon."
Photo = "Photograph"
Photo ≠ "We made this cool rendering of what we imagine something like this would look like."