PLOS One editors issued a retraction of a 2024 research article that proposed anti-neuroinflammatory and neuroprotective activity for Cissus tuberosa ethanol extract in a Parkinson’s disease model. The editors reported that post-publication concerns centered on both tabular results and unpublished image files submitted with the manuscript. Those concerns led to an editorial review that questioned the reliability of the study’s underlying data.
The retraction notice specifies that values reported in Tables 6 and 7 displayed an unusual repetitiveness in the standard error of the mean. That statistical pattern prompted requests for raw data and further examination. The corresponding author provided individual-level data for the graphs and tables, which the editors then assessed. Editorial review of those supplied data raised additional integrity and reliability issues, according to the notice, and those unresolved concerns factored directly into the decision to retract.
Editors identified three categories of image similarity problems. First, panels labeled as heart or liver in the unpublished material submitted for this article resembled panels published elsewhere under different experimental labels. Second, one of the comparisons tied the unpublished CG (control group) image to a CG panel that appeared in a separate article that has itself been retracted. Third, other unpublished panels matched figures published in a different journal article, with the corresponding author later stating that material had been used without the data owner’s authorization.
The notice lists specific image comparisons: the C Heart panel in the unpublished material was reported similar to a Fig 2 CG:Heart panel in a separate paper; a C Liver panel in the unpublished material resembled a Fig 2:TR Liver panel in that same paper; and the CG panel in the unpublished material matched a Fig 3 CG panel from a paper later retracted. Those parallels, as described by the editors, mean that images presented as representing distinct experimental conditions may not have been independent or appropriately labeled.
Regarding tabular data, the repetitive appearance of standard error values in Tables 6–7 triggered scrutiny because such patterns can indicate data handling or reporting issues. The retraction notice does not provide further methodological detail about how the tables were produced, nor does it report numerical examples or statistical analyses beyond stating the editors’ concern. The source did not report additional experimental methods, dosing regimens, or animal-model specifics in the retraction text.
The corresponding author communicated to the journal that errors occurred during figure preparation for the images in the manuscript’s original version and that those images had been corrected in later revisions. For the similarities tied to material published in a different journal, the corresponding author told editors that the material had been used without the data owner’s authorization. The retraction notice records these statements but also indicates that providing these explanations did not resolve the concerns raised by the supplied individual-level data.
Two authors—listed by initials in the notice as ZC and MA—responded to editorial queries but did not state whether they agreed or disagreed with the retraction. The remaining coauthors (MS, ASehar, RS, HT, SAB, and ASethi) either did not respond directly to the journal or could not be reached, the notice reports. After editorial assessment of the provided raw data and unresolved questions about data integrity, the PLOS One Editors retracted the article.
The retraction notice provides the formal citation for the retracted article and cites two related publications. It documents the retracted PLOS One article with DOI and lists the related papers that motivated the image comparisons: one article in a different journal that the corresponding author cited as having unauthorized use of material, and another PLOS One paper that had already been retracted. The notice records the editors’ decision date and states that the article is retracted because of concerns about the integrity and reliability of the underlying individual-level data.
Limitations and unresolved questions recorded in the notice include the absence of independent verification that the corrected images fully represent distinct experimental conditions and the editors’ continued concerns about the supplied individual-level data’s integrity. The retraction notice did not report experimental details such as dosing, animal numbers, or statistical procedures beyond noting concerns with Tables 6–7; those specifics were not available in the source retraction text. The record ends with the editorial action and author engagement status rather than with corrective experimental data or an independent audit that would resolve the outstanding data integrity questions.