Hammad Yousaf, Ikrima Khalid, Kashif Barkat, Ikram Ullah Khan, Yasir Mehmood
Following a complaint and technical (editorial) investigation, the
authors were requested to provide essential documentation to verify the
reliability, validity, and ethical compliance of the study published. Despite
repeated reminders, the required documentation was not provided. Specifically,
the authors did not correspond or supply:
Raw Data: Original, unedited
high-resolution microscope capture files and supporting raw laboratory
datasets for the toxicity evaluation.
Image Documentation and proof of originality:
Original source files of Figure 11 (histological panels), with
confirmation of their originality and linkage to the raw dataset (due to
suspected image reuse and unauthorized duplication across panels).
Laboratory Records: Relevant lab logbooks
and supporting documentation verifying the experimental timeline.
Clarification of Methodology: Clear
description and additional supporting information for the histological
sample preparation and image acquisition procedures for methodological
transparency.
Moreover, in the next stage, the institution was approached
following COPE procedures—specifically through the Directorate of Advanced
Studies and the Dean of the Faculty. Correspondence at that stage did not yield
any communication from the author eitherThe absence of these critical materials undermines confidence in
the integrity and validity of the published findings. In accordance with the journal’s ethical policies and guidance
following the best practices of ‘Committee on Publication Ethics’ (COPE), this
article is retracted to maintain the accuracy and transparency of the
scientific record.
The retracted article will remain accessible
online, but it will be clearly marked as “Retracted” on each page.