Open https://veritas.vali.now/how-it-works/flyer for a 4-page handout,
or https://veritas.vali.now/how-it-works/flyer.pdf to download the PDF directly.
Veritas: Two ways to protect the scientific record
The flexible one. You have a figure you do not trust. You collect 5–13 other photos from the same camera and run a forensic comparison. No enrolled library required.
Quick check: Fast answer in the browser.
Full image integrity analysis: More reference photos, extra stability check, stronger report.
The institutional one. Labs, integrity teams, or publisher consortia enroll their real cameras. Later, researchers or specialists upload figures and see if they match that organization’s registered equipment.
Tool 1
Who: Editors, integrity officers, lawyers, funders. Anyone who needs a serious answer on one image or one paper, right now.
What they do: Put the figure in question on one side. On the other, add 5–13 photos from the camera you believe was used (from the lab, the authors, or the supplementary files). Hit analyze.
The twist: Those reference photos do not have to be blindly trusted. Veritas stress-tests the batch. Mixed pipelines, weak fingerprints, and other red flags show up before anyone calls it a match.
Why buy it: This is the “Swiss army knife” mode: No setup program, no enrolled library. Just bring images and get a defensible report your team can act on.
When you need speed: Fewer reference stills, answer while the meeting is still on the calendar. Ideal for “Should we go deeper?” Not the final word, but a sharp signal.
Typically 5–13 from the same device · varied scenes
Then Continue quick check. Report opens in the tab.
Sample quick check report
When the stakes are high: A fuller reference set plus deeper stability testing. Built for cases that may end up in front of a committee, a journal board, or counsel. Same workflow, stronger report.
5–13 stills · same alleged camera
Tool 2
Who sets it up: A lab, university research-integrity office, imaging core, or multi-publisher consortium that wants science to be checkable at scale.
What they organize: Staff enroll their most-used cameras once. Microscopes, gel docs, bench DSLRs. Fingerprints stay on file. The original enrollment photos do not.
Who uses it later (two common paths):
① Researcher self-check: Before submit, upload draft figures and see if they line up with the lab’s enrolled devices. Fix problems before a journal asks.
② Specialist review: An image-integrity analyst receives a figure tied to a participating organization, uploads it, and gets a ranked match against that org’s library. Powerful for publishers and partner audits.
Why institutions buy it: Integrity stops being a poster on the wall. It becomes infrastructure. Enroll once, verify forever, show partners you mean it.
Illustration: Imaging core or integrity lead registers each heavily used camera
| Device label | Enroll images | Quality |
|---|---|---|
| Gel-doc · Canon 60D | 55 | Reference stability 13/20 |
| Lab MacBook | — | Enrolled |
| Sony α57 | — | Enrolled |
| Nikon D90 | — | Enrolled |
| Nikon D7000 | — | Enrolled |
Researcher: “Will my submission match our enrolled gel doc?”
Specialist: “Does this author’s figure fit Lab X’s registered devices?”
Same next steps as on vali.now — for journals, universities, imaging cores, and integrity offices.