Researchers in India have lost four papers in journals belonging to the Royal Society of Chemistry over concerns that the images in the articles appear to have been doctored.
The senior author on the articles is Pralay Maiti, of the School of Material Science & Technology at Banaras Hindu University, in Varanasi.
“Polycaprolactone composites with TiO2 for potential nanobiomaterials: tunable properties using different phases” was published in 2012 in Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, and has been cited 65 times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science. According to the retraction notice:
The Royal Society of Chemistry hereby wholly retracts this Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics article due to concerns with the reliability of the data in the published article.
Fig. 2a, which represents TiO2 nanoparticles in the anatase phase, is a duplicated and scaled version of Fig. 2b, which represents TiO2 nanoparticles in the rutile phase. The authors allege that the images are similar, not identical, as whilst the phases are different, the material is the same. An expert reviewed the author’s response but concluded that it did not satisfactorily address the concerns.
Fig. 13b, which represents PCL-A composite nanofibers after degradation in PBS solution, appears to be a scaled version of Fig. 11a in a Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A paper by the same authors, which represents PLA scaffolds after biodegradation by proteinase K.1 The authors allege that the images are different. As raw data for Fig. 13b in this Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics paper could not be provided, there are concerns with the reliability of this image.
Given the significance of the concerns about the validity of the data, the findings presented in this paper are no longer reliable.
The authors were contacted about this retraction notice but did not respond.
“A polyurethane–chitosan brush as an injectable hydrogel for controlled drug delivery and tissue engineering” appeared in Polymer Chemistry in 2017 and has been cited 34 times.
The retraction notice reads:
The Royal Society of Chemistry hereby wholly retracts this Polymer Chemistry article due to concerns with the reliability of the data in the published article.
The control, CHT10 and CHT15 panels in Fig. 5c have overlapping sections and represent cells cultured on different samples. The authors claim that the overlapping sections are similar, not identical, as the biocompatibility is similar for the control, CHT10 and CHT15 samples. An expert reviewed the author’s response but concluded that it did not satisfactorily address the concerns.
Fig. 6bii, which represents the skin of the hydrogel forming area, is a duplicated, rotated and scaled version of Fig. 6bi, which represents the control. The authors claim that the images are similar, not identical, as the hydrogel does not interact with the skin when compared with the control. An expert reviewed the author’s response but concluded that it did not satisfactorily address the concerns.
Given the significance of the concerns about the validity of the data, the findings presented in this paper are no longer reliable.
The authors were contacted about this retraction notice but did not respond.
Maiti’s group also has lost “A bio-based piezoelectric nanogenerator for mechanical energy harvesting using nanohybrid of poly(vinylidene fluoride),” published in 2019 in Nanoscale Advances and cited 17 times, and “Electrospun hybrid nanofibers of poly(vinylidene fluoride) and functionalized graphene oxide as a piezoelectric energy harvester,” which appeared in Sustainable Energy & Fuels in 2020 and has been cited four times.
In both cases, the authors:
oppose this retraction and state that the data published in this article is accurate.
Maiti told us that he learned that the journals had concerns about the work roughly six months ago, but that he and his colleagues hadn’t been informed about the “very unfortunate” retractions:
We did not receive any notice from the journal/RSC. We just once clarified our stand. Let me tell you our incidence.
As we have limited experimental facilities like TEM and other microscope we depend on others for the capture of the images of our samples. The students give sample to the operator or scientist and they take the images on their suitable time and provide the images. For us it is very difficult to judge whether they are for appropriate for respective samples. We do not have software to check it. We explained this to RSC and requested them for erratum / correction for any unintentional mistake which we even not aware of.
This is inform to you that we have performed the experiment in a serious manner and try to interpret them. We did not take other’s data or any other unfair means. I can tell you from the bottom of my heart that we did not indulge in malpractices. Even we requested RSC to place erratum or correction for unintentional mistake if it happen unknowingly. They did not listen at all and even I did not receive any letter [from the journal] about retraction. …
Truly speaking we had no intention to make any scientific fraud.
In a statement, the Royal Society of Chemistry said:
A reader initially contacted both us and the authors about image duplication and manipulation concerns with various TEM, SEM and biological images in the two papers, mostly within the same paper but also with a Journal of Biomedical Materials Research paper. We investigated in line with COPE guidelines and have corresponded with the authors throughout the investigation process.
The authors said that all of the images are genuine and that none of the data or figures are fabricated. They claimed that for each set of duplicated images the images are similar rather than identical. In consultation with a scientific expert, our journals team judged that images meant to represent different materials or samples are, in fact, identical. As the authors have not acknowledged that the images are the same or been able to provide any sufficient raw data/files, we have issued Editor’s retractions on these papers.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a one-time tax-deductible contribution or a monthly tax-deductible donation to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].