A journal has expressed regret over its sluggish response to image hijinx in a 2017 paper on the antimalarial properties of a kind of pea plant.
The article, “Antimalarial efficacy of Pongamia pinnata (L) Pierre against Plasmodium falciparum (3D7 strain) and Plasmodium berghei (ANKA),” was written by P. V. V. Satish and K. Sunita, of the Department of Zoology and Aquaculture at Acharya Nagarjuna University.
The paper drew scrutiny on PubPeer four years ago, where commenters noted issues with the figures.
Time passed, and the paper was cited six times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science. Now, according to the retraction notice:
The Editor in Chief has retracted this article because concerns have been raised regarding two figures presented here. Specifically:
— In Fig. 2 it appears that ‘Control Positive’ and ‘Leaf’ show the same image and that ‘Bark’ and ‘Root’ show the same image
— In Fig. 5 it appears that ‘CH Leaves’ and ‘CH Bark’ show the same image, albeit rotated
— In Fig. 5 it appears that ‘CH Flowers’ and ‘EA Bark’ show the same image, albeit rotated
— In Fig. 5 it appears that ‘HE Bark’ and ‘EA Roots’ show the same image, albeit rotated
In Fig. 5 it appears that ‘EA Flowers’ and ‘HE Roots’ shows the same image
The authors provided additional data, but were not able to show original images for these figures. The Editor-in-Chief therefore no longer has confidence in the integrity of the data in this article.
Both authors, P.V.V. Satish and K. Sunita have not explicitly stated whether they agree to this retraction notice.
Sunita did not respond to a request for comment.
Tim Shipley, Executive Editor of the BMC Series, told us in a statement:
Regrettably it took too long to investigate and retract this paper. In addition to the time needed to follow best practice and ensure that the issues were assessed by independent experts, the process was delayed by protracted communications with the authors and a change in editorship of the journal.
In case you’re curious, here are Figure 2 and Figure 5.
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].
In Fig 6, AO suppressive and AO repository are same photo rotated 180 degrees, also G suppressive and G repository are same but flipped, top to bottom.
The duplicated photos in fig 2 have been modified by adding and/or removing a few cells in each.
I assume this has already been noticed, although the retraction, as quoted, doesn’t mention it.
Sorry, my previous comment has error, should read ” also G suppressive and G repository are same rotated 180 degrees.”