The PLOS One Editors have formally retracted a 2023 survey article that examined beliefs, perceptions, and clinical manifestations related to pre- and postvaccination for COVID-19 among physiotherapy students in the United Arab Emirates. The editors reported that the article’s peer-review process was compromised. They also raised concerns about compliance with the journal’s policy on Manipulation of the Publication Process. The retraction notice states those two problems as the reason for removal of the record from the active literature.
The notice documents the editorial judgment in plain terms: the integrity of the peer-review pathway could not be assured for this manuscript, and additional irregularities tied to the publication process were identified. The source does not provide a granular forensic account of how the peer-review process was compromised. The editors did not release peer-review files or a step-by-step chronology explaining the procedural breaches in the retraction statement available from the journal.
The retraction notice records author-level responses. Two authors—initials AH and SK as listed by the journal—did not agree with the retraction, the editors reported. The notice also states that three other authors (SA, PK, and SG) either did not respond directly to the journal’s communications or could not be reached. The source supplies these author-reaction statements verbatim and offers no additional commentary from individual authors beyond their recorded agreement status.
No quotations from the dissenting authors or affidavits contesting the editors’ findings are included in the source document. The journal’s notice does not append correspondence, nor does it list follow-up steps for unresolved author disagreements beyond the formal retraction and the bibliographic correction published by the editors.
The retraction carries its own DOI and publication metadata. The notice is dated October 20, 2026, and is assigned a DOI that links to the retraction text. The editors reproduced the original article citation within the retraction record and linked to the previously published, now-retracted article page. That linked record is labeled RETRACTED in the journal’s system and includes the original article DOI and PubMed citation details as shown by the journal.
The retraction document also clarifies licensing and distribution: it is open access under the Creative Commons Attribution License, so the editors’ notice and its bibliographic data remain publicly available. Readers are given direct links in the notice to the retracted article landing page, its PDF, and the PubMed/NCBI entry for the original publication.
The source is narrowly focused on editorial process and author reactions; it does not report study-level data. The retraction notice contains no information on sample size, participant demographics, survey instruments, statistical analyses, clinical endpoints, adverse-event reports, or the original study’s methodological details. Those content elements were not reproduced in the retraction statement and therefore cannot be summarized from this source.
The editors did not provide a forensic timeline of the investigation into peer-review integrity, nor did they specify the precise mechanisms of the purported manipulation of the publication process. The notice likewise omits any discussion of institutional investigations, ethical approvals, or corrective measures beyond the retraction itself. Those items were not reported in the journal’s retraction text.
Readers consulting the journal record will find the editors’ public rationale—compromised peer review and suspected manipulation—together with the documented author responses (who agreed or disagreed with the action). For further details about the original research methods, results, or the precise nature of the editorial concerns, the retraction notice points back to the retracted article and to the journal’s policy statements, but it does not supply additional primary data or investigative findings.
Reference
The retraction document reproduces the original citation as follows: Almheiri S, Hazari A, Kumar P, Kumar S, Girish S. RETRACTED: A comprehensive survey on the beliefs, perceptions, and clinical manifestations of pre and post Covid-19 vaccinations among physiotherapy students in the United Arab Emirates. PLoS One. 2023;18(4):e0282385. The retraction notice itself is cited under the DOI and date given in the source.
Limitations and open questions recorded in the notice
The journal’s statement is definitive about the reason for retraction but limited in procedural detail. It does not identify the exact failures in peer review or the specific acts that triggered the Manipulation of the Publication Process concern. The editorial record ends with the published retraction, the author agreement status, and the bibliographic links. The source does not report any planned next steps, appeals by the dissenting authors, institutional inquiries, or release of investigatory documents. Those items remain unanswered in the published notice.