The PLOS One Editors issued a retraction for the 2024 article reporting biochemical properties and antiparkinsonian activity of Syzygium heyneanum in a paraquat-induced rodent model. The editorial note was published October 20, 2026 and carries DOI e0360894. The retraction statement links directly to the original paper and to related materials cited in the notice; full references and DOIs are provided by the journal.
The retraction is presented as an editorial action. The journal named the concerns that prompted investigation, documented correspondence with the corresponding author, and recorded the authors’ expressed positions or lack of response. The notice is available under the journal’s open-access policy.
Readers and editors identified multiple instances where image panels used to represent distinct experimental conditions appear visually similar. The notice lists those comparisons explicitly: several control (CG) and treated (TR) tissue panels in Fig 2—across liver, lung and heart panels—match images used in another related publication, and the Fig 3 CG panel resembles a control panel submitted with a different manuscript that was later retracted. The retraction text names the specific figure panels and the related manuscripts to which they were compared.
Separately, the notice flagged a statistical anomaly in Tables 4–6. The reported standard error of the mean values in those tables appear unusually repetitive, an observation that prompted additional scrutiny of the tabulated results and their underlying calculations. The journal did not supply additional numerical detail beyond noting the repetitiveness was atypical and concerning.
The corresponding author provided an account for part of the overlap: they stated errors occurred during figure preparation for the unpublished material associated with one related manuscript, and they said those errors were corrected in later revisions of that manuscript. For the overlap between this article and another published paper, the corresponding author claimed the material in that other paper had been used without the data owner’s authorization.
Following the concerns, the corresponding author supplied the individual-level data that underpinned the article’s graphs and tables. The retraction notice confirms data provision to the editors but does not reprint or summarize those raw files. The journal’s editorial team then conducted an assessment of those individual-level data files.
Editorial assessment of the submitted individual-level data reportedly raised further concerns about data integrity and reliability. The retraction notice does not enumerate the specific defects the editors observed in those raw data; rather, the editors state that, in light of the concerns observed with the individual-level data, they have retracted the article.
The notice records the authors’ positions with direct attributions: one author (MA) did not agree with the retraction; a second author (ZC) responded but did not clarify agreement or disagreement; several coauthors (MS, HT, US, SAB, ASehar, and ASethi) either did not respond directly or could not be reached. The editors present these responses to document author engagement during the postpublication inquiry.
The retraction notice leaves several concrete questions open. The journal did not report experimental details in this notice—dosing regimens, animal numbers, methods for image capture and handling, or the statistical tests used for tables—so those protocol elements cannot be evaluated from the retraction text alone. The editors indicate additional concerns about the individual-level data, but they do not disclose the granular issues identified within those files.
The provenance of the duplicated image panels and the chain of custody for original image files remain unresolved in the public notice. The notice also does not specify whether the overlapping material in the other paper was independently verified by its publisher or whether formal corrections were requested there. The retraction mentions two related items in its reference list, including one subsequent retraction, but does not expand on cross-journal follow-up actions beyond citation.
For clinicians and researchers following the preclinical literature on environmental toxin models of Parkinsonism, the practical consequence is clear: the experimental claims in this article should not be relied upon as a valid evidence source. The journal’s action removes this record as a reliable report, and the underlying dataset remains flagged by the editors.
Remaining steps documented in the notice are procedural rather than experimental. The journal has cataloged the retraction, linked it to the original article, and provided bibliographic traceability to related publications. The notice concludes on the basis that concerns about the integrity and reliability of the individual-level data warranted retraction. The retraction text does not speculate about intent, and it does not provide further investigative outcomes or corrective laboratory-level documentation.
Limitations: the retraction notice did not include methodologic specifics or present the editors’ detailed findings from the raw data review. These omissions limit external appraisal and leave precise technical questions unanswered about the dataset and the originating image files.