According to the editorial notice, the decision stems from a broader review rather than from a specific dispute about the study’s data. The PLOS One Editors state that the article was identified as one of a series of submissions about which the journal has concerns regarding the integrity and reliability of the peer review process. In other words, the question is not, at least so far, whether the measurements themselves are accurate, but whether the manuscript was properly vetted by independent experts before publication. That distinction matters, because peer review is the mechanism that journals rely on to filter out flawed methods, unsupported conclusions, and undisclosed conflicts before a paper becomes part of the citable literature.

The notice is notable for what it does and does not assert. PLOS explicitly states that it did not evaluate the article’s integrity or scientific validity while following up on the matter, and readers are advised to interpret the paper with consideration of the peer review concerns. This is a deliberately cautious formulation. An Expression of Concern sits below a full retraction in the hierarchy of post-publication corrections: it signals unresolved doubt, keeps the paper in the database so that other researchers can still find and cite it, and reserves judgment until an investigation concludes or the situation is otherwise resolved. Journals typically resort to this notice when concerns are credible but the underlying facts have not yet been fully established.

Equally significant is what the editors say about the authors. The notice records that PLOS has no evidence of any author involvement in the peer review concerns. That statement matters because schemes in which reviewers fake their own identities or coordinate approving reviews, sometimes called peer review rings, have historically implicated authors who submitted fabricated reviewer email addresses. By stating that no author involvement is suspected here, PLOS is locating the problem elsewhere in the pipeline, while leaving open exactly where the failure occurred. The editors also note that the academic editor listed on the article is a PLOS staff editor who was not involved in the concerns and was unaware of the peer review issues before the article was published, an apparent attempt to shield that individual from unfair inference.

The underlying study itself addressed a clinically active area of research. The pelvic floor muscles form a hammock-like group of fibers spanning the base of the pelvis, and weakness or dysfunction in these muscles is associated with urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, and other conditions that affect a large share of the population, particularly after childbirth and with advancing age. Electromyography, or EMG, is the standard tool for assessing such muscles noninvasively: surface or intravaginal electrodes detect the tiny electrical signals generated when muscle fibers contract, allowing researchers and clinicians to quantify activation strength and timing. Because the pelvic floor is invisible from outside the body and difficult to activate consciously, biofeedback devices that help patients learn correct muscle engagement have become a focus of physiotherapy research.

Against that background, the flagged paper evaluated electromyographic activity of the pelvic floor muscles in different body positions while participants used what the authors describe as an innovative vaginal educator, a device intended to teach patients how to locate and contract the right muscles. Posture is genuinely consequential in this field, because muscle activation measured standing can differ from activation measured lying down, and rehabilitation protocols often specify positions accordingly. A device that reliably guides patients through contractions in multiple positions could, in principle, improve home-based pelvic floor training, which is why such cross-sectional comparisons attract clinical interest. The Expression of Concern does not dispute the plausibility of that research question; it concerns the process by which the report was reviewed.

The mechanics of peer review, when it functions as designed, are straightforward. A journal editor sends a manuscript to two or more independent experts, who assess the methods, statistics, and interpretations and recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection. The system’s weakness is its dependence on trust: reviewers are usually invited based on email addresses supplied with the manuscript or drawn from a database, and journals historically have had limited tools to verify that a reviewer is who they claim to be. Large open-access journals that process tens of thousands of submissions each year are particularly exposed to abuse at scale, and several publishers have spent recent years tightening identity checks, cross-referencing reviewer accounts, and screening submissions for telltale signs of coordinated manipulation.

PLOS has been among the publishers most visibly affected by such schemes. The publisher has previously issued mass retractions involving large numbers of papers in which peer review was compromised, and expressions of concern have become its preferred instrument when an investigation is incomplete. Grouping this article into a series of submissions with related concerns suggests the journal detected a pattern, perhaps through shared reviewer identities, overlapping manuscript characteristics, or anomalies flagged by screening software, and has chosen to annotate every affected paper rather than quietly removing any single one. That approach preserves transparency: readers, funders, and institutions can see the warning attached directly to the record, and the scientific record is amended rather than erased.

For clinicians and researchers who cite the pelvic floor study, the practical consequences are immediate. Citation managers and databases such as PubMed will continue to list the paper, which appeared in PLOS One in March 2024 and carries PubMed identifier 38536803, but the Expression of Concern is now part of its permanent record, linked through the digital object identifiers of both the notice and the original article. Authors citing the work are expected to disclose the notice; failure to do so can itself be treated as a reporting omission. For patients, the direct implications are more limited, since a single cross-sectional measurement study does not by itself set treatment guidelines, but the episode underscores why rehabilitation devices and protocols should be adopted on the strength of multiple, independently reviewed lines of evidence rather than one publication.

The case also illustrates a broader shift in how science polices itself. Post-publication notices were once rare and carried stigma; they are now a routine tool that allows journals to respond quickly to suspected problems without waiting years for institutional investigations to run their course. Whether this particular study is ultimately validated, corrected, or retracted, the record now tells readers exactly what is known and what remains unresolved: the journal has doubts about the reliability of the peer review that preceded publication, no evidence against the authors, and no finding on the science itself. In an era when a single paper can shape clinical practice within months of appearing online, that calibrated honesty may be the notice’s most valuable contribution.

Subject of Research: Peer review integrity concerns surrounding a 2024 PLOS One study of pelvic floor muscle electromyography during use of a vaginal educator device

Article Title: Expression of Concern: Electromyographic activity of pelvic floor muscles in different positions during the use an innovative vaginal educator: Cross-sectional study

Article References: The PLOS One Editors (2026). Expression of Concern: Electromyographic activity of pelvic floor muscles in different positions during the use an innovative vaginal educator: Cross-sectional study. PLOS One, 21(10), e0360775. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0360775

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0360775

Keywords: PLOS One, Expression of Concern, peer review, research integrity, pelvic floor muscles, electromyography, vaginal educator, biofeedback, open access, cross-sectional study, publication ethics, post-publication correction

The original paper, published on 23 May 2019 by a team of researchers at the University of Bologna and the Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori in Meldola, reported that hyper-activation of a signaling axis involving Aurora kinase A, polo-like kinase 1, and the transcription factor FOXM1 promotes resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors in chronic myeloid leukemia. The work attracted attention because it pointed to a route of drug escape that operates independently of the BCR-ABL fusion protein, the canonical target of imatinib and its successor drugs. Resistance that arises through BCR-ABL mutations can often be tackled with second- and third-generation inhibitors, but resistance driven by downstream survival pathways is a thornier clinical problem.

To understand why the finding mattered, it helps to unpack the molecular machinery involved. Aurora kinase A is a serine-threonine kinase best known for its role in mitosis, where it orchestrates centrosome maturation, spindle assembly, and entry into mitosis through activation at threonine 288, a key autophosphorylation site. Polo-like kinase 1, or PLK1, is another mitotic kinase that acts downstream and in parallel, coordinating checkpoint recovery and cytokinesis, with its own activating phosphorylation at threonine 210. FOXM1 is a proliferation-associated transcription factor that drives the expression of genes required for cell-cycle progression, and it is a well-documented transcriptional target of PLK1 signaling. Together, these three components form a coherent mitotic regulatory cascade, and overactivity of such cascades is a hallmark of many cancers, including leukemias.

The Bologna group’s central claim was that in chronic myeloid leukemia, this axis can become hyper-activated in a way that sustains leukemic cell survival even when BCR-ABL kinase activity is pharmacologically silenced. In practical terms, the suggestion was that imatinib, dasatinib, nilotinib, and related drugs might fail in some patients not because the target enzyme mutates, but because the leukemia cells acquire or amplify an alternative pro-survival program centered on mitotic kinase signaling. If true, the implication for therapy would be significant: combining tyrosine kinase inhibitors with Aurora kinase A or PLK1 inhibitors could potentially resensitize resistant cells, offering a rational combination strategy for patients whose disease no longer responds to standard treatment.

Chronic myeloid leukemia is, in many respects, the great success story of targeted cancer therapy. The Philadelphia chromosome, the characteristic translocation that generates the BCR-ABL fusion kinase, provided a single, druggable driver, and imatinib’s approval in 2001 converted a uniformly fatal disease into a manageable chronic condition for most patients. Yet a stubborn minority of patients fail therapy, and the mechanisms of failure fall into two broad categories. The first is BCR-ABL-dependent resistance, typically caused by point mutations in the kinase domain, including the notoriously difficult T315I mutation. The second is BCR-ABL-independent resistance, in which leukemic stem cells or progenitors survive through alternative signaling routes, efflux pumps, quiescence, or epigenetic adaptations. The Aurora A-PLK1-FOXM1 hypothesis belongs squarely in this second category, which is precisely why it generated interest among translational researchers.

The expression of concern, published on 12 October 2026 as volume 45, article number 214 of the journal, does not invalidate the paper’s hypothesis outright, but it casts doubt on a specific body of supporting evidence. According to the notice, concerns were raised regarding highly similar images in the article. Specifically, the Editor-in-Chief flagged that Figure 1C and Figure 1E show similar band appearances in corresponding lanes, particularly for the phosphorylated forms of Aurora kinase A at threonine 288 and PLK1 at threonine 210. These two western blot signals are central to the paper’s argument, because they represent the experimental readout of the pathway’s activation state. If the bands cannot be trusted, the evidence that the axis is hyper-activated in resistant cells is weakened at its foundation.

The journal’s handling of the matter followed established post-publication correction procedures. The authors were asked to respond and, according to the notice, provided raw data upon request. However, the raw image files could not be conclusively verified, leaving the concerns unresolved. In such situations, editors typically face a choice between a full retraction, which asserts that the findings are unreliable, and an expression of concern, which is an interim or standing alert telling readers to interpret specific data with caution. The Editor-in-Chief chose the latter, advising readers to treat the affected figures with care while stopping short of retracting the entire article. This calibrated response reflects the reality that image duplication does not necessarily indicate misconduct, and that some concerns can never be definitively adjudicated when original files are unavailable or ambiguous.

Equally revealing is the split among the author group itself. According to the published notice, M. Mancini, S. De Santis, C. Monaldi, F. Castagnetti, G. Gugliotta, G. Rosti, and S. Soverini disagree with the editorial expression of concern, while L. Bavaro, M. Martelli, M. A. Santucci, G. Martinelli, and M. Cavo did not respond to correspondence from the publisher. This divergence within a single research team is uncommon in public notices and underscores how contested such judgments can be. Authors who disagree may believe the raw data, even if not conclusively verifiable, still support the conclusions, or that the flagged similarities reflect technical artifacts of western blotting rather than duplication. Western blot images are notoriously prone to interpretation disputes, since band patterns can appear similar across lanes for reasons ranging from sample loading characteristics to scanning and assembly of figure panels.

For the wider leukemia research community, the notice is a reminder of how the field’s understanding of tyrosine kinase inhibitor resistance continues to evolve. The BCR-ABL-independent resistance literature includes contributions from many laboratories, and the Aurora A-PLK1-FOXM1 axis remains one of several proposed mechanisms, alongside alterations in stromal niche signaling, drug efflux transporters, and stem cell quiescence programs. Any single study’s evidentiary problems do not erase the broader biological plausibility of mitotic kinase involvement in drug-tolerant leukemic cells, but they do mean that researchers citing the 2019 paper must now do so with explicit caution. Databases and indexing services link the expression of concern to the original article, which was published under DOI 10.1186/s13046-019-1197-9, while the notice itself carries the DOI 10.1186/s13046-026-03848-7.

The episode also illustrates the changing economics of scientific trust. Open-access publishing, under which this journal operates with a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license, maximizes the dissemination of findings, but it also depends on robust post-publication oversight to maintain credibility. Tools such as CrossMark, which flags updated versions of records, and the growing use of image-integrity screening mean that papers published years ago can still face scrutiny today. For patients and clinicians, the practical takeaway is unchanged: tyrosine kinase inhibitors remain the cornerstone of chronic myeloid leukemia care, and resistance management continues to rely on mutation monitoring and sequential inhibitor switching. For scientists, the message is sharper. A striking hypothesis about how leukemia cells outsmart targeted drugs now stands on contested evidence, and the burden of verification rests with those who would build on it. The expression of concern will remain attached to the record unless the underlying concerns are resolved, a resolution that, on current evidence, neither the journal nor the divided author group can yet deliver.

Subject of Research: Editorial expression of concern regarding a study of Aurora kinase A–PLK1–FOXM1 axis-mediated tyrosine kinase inhibitor resistance in chronic myeloid leukemia

Article Title: Editorial expression of concern: Hyper-activation of Aurora kinase a-pololike kinase 1-FOXM1 axis promotes chronic myeloid leukemia resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors

Article References: Mancini, M., De Santis, S., Monaldi, C., Bavaro, L., Martelli, M., Castagnetti, F., Gugliotta, G., Rosti, G., Santucci, M. A., Martinelli, G., Cavo, M., & Soverini, S. (2026). Editorial expression of concern: Hyper-activation of Aurora kinase a-pololike kinase 1-FOXM1 axis promotes chronic myeloid leukemia resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research, 45(1), Article 214. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13046-026-03848-7

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s13046-026-03848-7

Keywords: chronic myeloid leukemia, Aurora kinase A, polo-like kinase 1, FOXM1, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, drug resistance, editorial expression of concern, image integrity, BCR-ABL, post-publication scrutiny, western blot, Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research

At the center of the matter is Tariq Shah, listed as the first author of the original paper, which appeared in the journal in November 2023 under the title describing how silicon inhibits cadmium uptake by regulating genes tied to the lignin biosynthetic pathway and plant hormone signal transduction in maize. In the published version of record, Shah’s affiliation was given as the Plant Science Research Unit of the Agricultural Research Service, part of the United States Department of Agriculture, in Raleigh, North Carolina. According to the expression of concern, the USDA has informed the journal that Shah was never affiliated with that research unit. That discrepancy, involving a claimed connection to a major American federal research agency, was serious enough for the journal to alert its readership formally.

Expressions of concern occupy a peculiar and often misunderstood niche in the architecture of research integrity. A full retraction signals that a paper’s findings or conduct are so compromised that the work should no longer be considered part of the reliable literature. A correction handles smaller errors, such as a misspelled name or a mislabeled figure. The expression of concern sits between these poles: it is issued when editors have substantial worries about a paper but cannot yet, or may never, reach a definitive judgment about whether the problems invalidate the science. In this case, the stated problem concerns institutional attribution rather than the experimental data themselves, which is why the journal chose the caution flag rather than immediate retraction.

The mechanics of how such a notice comes to be are worth understanding, because they reveal how the modern publishing ecosystem polices itself. Journals routinely verify author affiliations during or after peer review, and federal agencies such as the USDA occasionally audit publications that claim their units as institutional homes. When a discrepancy surfaces, the editor-in-chief consults with the publisher’s research integrity team, may contact the authors for explanation, and then decides on the appropriate notice. Here, the published statement indicates that the USDA itself communicated the inaccuracy to the journal, and that the authors concurred with the resulting notice. That agreement typically shortens what can otherwise be a months-long or years-long dispute, since contested expressions of concern often devolve into prolonged correspondence between editors, institutions, and author teams.

For readers and researchers who cite the work, the practical implications are significant. Citation databases such as Web of Science and Scopus link expressions of concern to the original record, and CrossMark, the version-of-record service operated by Crossref, now flags the article’s page with an update notice. Scientists who had relied on the paper’s conclusions about silicon-mediated cadmium tolerance in maize must now weigh the affiliation problem when deciding whether to cite the work, and many journals’ guidelines advise citing such papers with an explicit note about the concern. The journal’s own notice advises readers to interpret both the authorship and the institutional attribution with caution, language that stops short of questioning the data but clearly signals that the paper’s provenance cannot be taken at face value.

The underlying science, however, remains a topic of genuine importance, which is part of why the paper attracted attention in the first place. Cadmium is one of the most troublesome heavy-metal contaminants in agricultural soils worldwide. It enters croplands through industrial emissions, phosphate fertilizers, sewage sludge, and irrigation with contaminated water, and unlike many pollutants it is readily taken up by plant roots and translocated into shoots and grain. In humans, chronic dietary cadmium exposure damages the kidneys, weakens bones, and is classified as a carcinogen. Rice and maize, staple cereals feeding billions, are particularly efficient cadmium accumulators under certain soil conditions, making the search for practical mitigation strategies a global food-safety priority rather than an academic curiosity.

Silicon has emerged over the past two decades as one of the most promising tools in that search. Although silicon is not classified as an essential element for most plants, it is abundantly taken up by grasses, including maize, in the form of silicic acid from soil solution. Once inside the plant, silicon polymerizes into amorphous silica, depositing in root cell walls, endodermal tissues, and leaf surfaces. This deposition has well-documented physical effects: it thickens and toughens cell walls, which can act as a barrier that binds or blocks metal ions and reduces their apoplastic flow into the root stele. Silicon also modulates a suite of biochemical responses, including enhanced antioxidant enzyme activity, altered expression of metal transporter genes, and changes in the chemical speciation of cadmium within tissues, rendering the metal less biologically active.

The original paper’s title points to two molecular levers through which silicon was proposed to act. The first is lignin biosynthesis, the metabolic pathway that builds lignin, the phenolic polymer that gives vascular plants their structural rigidity and waterproofing. Lignification of root cell walls is known to influence metal uptake, because lignified barriers can immobilize cadmium in the outer root tissues and reduce its passage toward the xylem, the pipeline that carries water and dissolved minerals upward to the shoot. By upregulating genes encoding enzymes in the lignin pathway, silicon treatment could, in principle, reinforce this physical checkpoint. The second lever is plant hormone signal transduction, the network of perception and response cascades for regulators such as auxins, abscisic acid, jasmonates, and salicylic acid, which orchestrate stress responses. Hormone signaling intersects with metal stress at many points, controlling root architecture, stomatal behavior, and the transcriptional programs that activate detoxification machinery. A study connecting silicon, lignin genes, and hormone pathways in maize therefore addressed a coherent and mechanistically plausible hypothesis, one that fits within a broader and independently well-supported literature on silicon’s protective roles against abiotic and heavy-metal stress.

What happens next depends on the outcome of institutional and editorial processes that are not described in the notice. If further investigation were to uncover problems with the data or the experiments themselves, the expression of concern could be upgraded to a retraction. If the affiliation issue is resolved as an isolated administrative error, the journal could close the matter with the concern standing, or in some cases replace it with a correction of the author list. For now, the paper remains in the literature, stamped with a caution that the publishing system hopes readers will heed. The episode serves as a reminder that the credibility of a scientific paper rests not only on its data and methods but on the accuracy of its metadata, and that even a single misstated affiliation, when it involves a federal research agency, can ripple outward to touch how an entire body of work on cadmium-stressed maize is read, cited, and trusted.

Subject of Research: Editorial expression of concern regarding a study of silicon-mediated cadmium uptake inhibition in maize plants

Article Title: Editorial Expression of Concern: Silicon inhibits cadmium uptake by regulating the genes associated with the lignin biosynthetic pathway and plant hormone signal transduction in maize plants

Article References: Shah, T., Khan, Z., Khan, S. R., Imran, A., Asad, M., Ahmad, A., & Ahmad, P. (2026). Editorial Expression of Concern: Silicon inhibits cadmium uptake by regulating the genes associated with the lignin biosynthetic pathway and plant hormone signal transduction in maize plants. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 33(27), 14041-14041. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-026-38189-7

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s11356-026-38189-7

Keywords: silicon, cadmium, maize, lignin biosynthesis, plant hormone signaling, heavy metal stress, editorial expression of concern, research integrity, USDA, affiliation misconduct, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, food safety

The original article, published on 17 December 2019 in Polymer Bulletin volume 77, pages 6063 to 6083, reported the development and optimization of hydrogel networks built from pectin, a naturally occurring polysaccharide most familiar to consumers as the gelling agent in jams and jellies. In pharmaceutical science, pectin has attracted intense interest because it is biocompatible, biodegradable, inexpensive, and derived from renewable plant sources such as citrus peel and apple pomace. The research team, led by authors affiliated with Government College University Faisalabad, the University of Sargodha, The University of Lahore, and The Islamia University of Bahawalpur in Pakistan, set out to tune the swelling behavior, gel fraction, and drug release kinetics of these hydrogels so that nifedipine could be released steadily over an extended period rather than in a sudden burst.

Nifedipine is a calcium channel blocker widely prescribed for hypertension and angina, and its delivery profile matters enormously for patient safety. The drug is notoriously photolabile and poorly water soluble, and conventional immediate-release formulations have been associated with sharp drops in blood pressure and reflex tachycardia. Controlled-release matrices, including hydrogel systems, are designed to smooth out these peaks and troughs by allowing water to penetrate the polymer network, dissolve the drug, and then diffuse outward through the swollen mesh at a rate governed by crosslinking density, polymer composition, and mesh size. A pectin-based system with adjustable properties would, in principle, let formulators dial in the desired release rate simply by changing formulation variables, a proposition with genuine commercial and clinical appeal.

That is precisely why the concerns flagged by the Editor-in-Chief strike at the heart of the paper’s credibility. According to the expression of concern, Figure 5 of the pectin hydrogel article appears to be identical to Figure 2c in a separate 2018 publication on chondroitin sulfate-based hydrogels of loxoprofen, which appeared in Carbohydrate Polymers. The overlap involves two different polymers, two different drugs, and two different experimental contexts, making the apparent duplication particularly troubling. In materials characterization, figures typically present spectroscopic traces, swelling curves, or release profiles that are unique to a specific formulation under specific conditions. When the same figure surfaces in studies of unrelated polymer-drug combinations, it raises the possibility that the underlying experiments were not performed as described, or that images were reused to fill gaps in the data record.

The second concern is subtler but no less consequential. The Editor-in-Chief notes that the acrylic acid trace in Figure 2 of the pectin study appears highly similar to the trace in Figure 2 of yet another 2018 paper, this one describing a cross-linked sodium alginate-g-poly(acrylic acid) hydrogel network for the delivery of loxoprofen sodium, published in Advanced Polymer Technology. In that case, the similarity persists even though the x-axis appears to have been shifted slightly. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy and related analytical traces are fingerprints of chemical structure, and while spectra of related acrylate-based networks can resemble one another, a near-duplicate trace with a minor axis shift suggests digital manipulation rather than independent measurement. Shifting an x-axis is a classic red flag in image-integrity investigations because it can make copied data look superficially distinct while preserving the underlying pattern.

Compounding these figure-level concerns is the authors’ response, or lack thereof. The expression of concern states that the authors have not provided the original scanning electron microscopy images, both before and after expansion, upon request. SEM micrographs are central evidence in hydrogel characterization, revealing pore morphology and network structure that correlate directly with swelling and diffusion behavior. When authors cannot or will not produce the raw image files underlying published micrographs, editors and readers lose the ability to verify that the images depict the samples in question. The notice also records that the authors have not responded to any correspondence from the editor or publisher regarding the expression of concern, leaving the issues unresolved and the scientific record in limbo.

Editorial Expressions of Concern occupy an important and often misunderstood niche in scholarly publishing. Unlike a retraction, which withdraws a paper’s findings from the literature, an expression of concern signals that doubts exist but that an investigation is incomplete, inconclusive, or ongoing. Journals typically issue them when institutional inquiries are pending, when authors are unresponsive, or when the evidence of problems is strong but not yet definitive. Readers are advised in this case to interpret the results with caution, which in practical terms means that researchers citing the paper should acknowledge its contested status and that clinicians or formulators should not rely on its reported optimization data without independent confirmation. The notice is linked to the original article through Crossmark, Springer Nature’s version-of-record update service, ensuring that anyone accessing the 2019 paper will see the alert.

The episode also shines a light on the broader challenge of image integrity in polymer and pharmaceutical sciences, fields that generate enormous volumes of spectroscopic traces, micrographs, and kinetic curves. Duplicate and manipulated figures have been documented across disciplines, and automated screening tools now routinely flag similarities that might once have escaped notice. The two earlier papers referenced in the expression of concern, both involving overlapping authorship with the pectin study, illustrate how concerns can cluster around related bodies of work. When a single figure or trace appears in multiple publications describing different chemical systems, the credibility of all affected papers comes into question, because at least some of the published data cannot reflect real experiments as described.

For the field of natural polymer drug delivery, the stakes extend beyond one paper. Pectin, alginate, chondroitin sulfate, and related polysaccharides remain genuinely promising scaffolds for controlled release, and well-executed studies continue to advance the area. But the credibility of that literature depends on the verifiability of individual results, and expressions of concern like this one serve as a reminder that optimization claims, release profiles, and structural characterizations must rest on data that can withstand scrutiny. Whether the 2019 pectin-nifedipine study is ultimately retracted, corrected, or exonerated, the case underscores a simple principle on which the entire enterprise of pharmaceutical materials science depends: the figures in a paper must be the honest record of the experiments the paper claims to describe.

Subject of Research: An Editorial Expression of Concern raised over a pectin-based hydrogel study for controlled nifedipine delivery in Polymer Bulletin

Article Title: Editorial Expression of Concern (EEoC): Pectin-based hydrogels with adjustable properties for controlled delivery of nifedipine: development and optimization

Article References: Ajaz, N., Khalid, I., Minhas, M. U., Barkat, K., Khan, I. U., Syed, H. K., Asghar, S., Munir, R., & Aslam, F. (2026). Editorial Expression of Concern (EEoC): Pectin-based hydrogels with adjustable properties for controlled delivery of nifedipine: development and optimization. Polymer Bulletin, 83(11), Article 629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00289-026-06680-3

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s00289-026-06680-3

Keywords: pectin hydrogels, nifedipine, controlled drug delivery, Editorial Expression of Concern, Polymer Bulletin, research integrity, image duplication, scanning electron microscopy, polysaccharide polymers, drug release kinetics, Springer Nature, pharmaceutics

The original review aimed to bridge the gap between abstract mathematical descriptions of spacetime and the grand narrative of the universe’s birth, specifically focusing on the inflationary epoch – the period of exponential expansion hypothesized to have occurred mere fractions of a second after the Big Bang. Inflation is a cornerstone of modern cosmology, explaining phenomena like the universe’s remarkable flatness and homogeneity. Momeni’s work purportedly navigates through sophisticated concepts such as Riemannian curvature, which describes how spacetime is bent by mass and energy, and the less-explored concept of torsion, which relates to the “twisting” of spacetime. Moreover, the paper extends its pedagogical reach into the realm of “extended gravity theories,” a diverse collection of theoretical frameworks that go beyond Einstein’s General Relativity, proposing modifications or additions to our understanding of gravity itself. The ambition was clearly to provide a unified and accessible viewpoint on these complex subjects and their potential roles in cosmic inflation.

However, the Editorial Expression of Concern, while not explicitly detailing alleged flaws, suggests that Momeni’s review paper has raised questions that warrant significant attention from the scientific community. Such an expression is not a retraction, but rather a formal alert to readers and peers that there are reservations regarding certain aspects of the published work. This could range from concerns about the interpretation of existing literature, the validity of the presented theoretical connections, or even the pedagogical clarity and accuracy with which these complex ideas have been conveyed. The very fact that such a notification has been issued implies that the paper, despite its intended educational purpose, may have inadvertently opened a Pandora’s Box of theoretical challenges or interpretations that require rigorous scrutiny and potential rectification before its findings can be fully assimilated into cosmological discourse.

The genesis of this concern likely lies in the intricate and often subtle interplay between geometric properties of spacetime and the dynamics of the universe. General Relativity, our current benchmark for gravity, describes spacetime as a four-dimensional manifold whose curvature governs gravitation. Inflationary cosmology, in its standard formulation, relies on a hypothetical scalar field (the inflaton field) that drives this rapid expansion. Momeni’s review, by examining curvature and torsion, and by venturing into extended gravity theories, probes whether alternative geometric descriptions of spacetime itself, independent of or in conjunction with such scalar fields, could account for inflation. These alternative theories often posit that gravity behaves differently at very high energies or very small scales, precisely the conditions prevailing in the early universe, thus offering fertile ground for new inflationary models.

The exploration of “torsion” in the context of cosmology is particularly provocative. In standard General Relativity, spacetime is a “torsionless manifold.” However, theories inspired by gauge theories and differential geometry predict the existence of torsion, which could represent a different aspect of spacetime structure than curvature. Introducing torsion into cosmological models could, in principle, lead to novel gravitational dynamics. Some theories suggest that torsion might play a role in generating the initial density fluctuations observed in the Cosmic Microwave Background, or even in driving the inflationary expansion itself, potentially without invoking additional scalar fields, a significant departure from the standard inflationary paradigm. Momeni’s review, by attempting to unpack these complex relationships pedagogically, seems to have brought these speculative ideas to the forefront for broader consideration.

Furthermore, the inclusion of “extended gravity theories” within the scope of the review is crucial. These theories, such as $f(R)$ gravity, scalar-tensor theories, and theories with higher-order curvature invariants, all aim to supersede or supplement Einstein’s theory. They often achieve this by introducing new fields or by modifying the Einstein-Hilbert action, the fundamental mathematical expression that defines gravity in General Relativity. In the context of inflation, these extended theories offer a rich landscape for devising new inflationary potentials and mechanisms. Some theories predict different inflationary histories, potentially resolving challenges faced by the standard model, or leading to specific observational signatures that could be tested with future astronomical observations. Momeni’s review apparently sought to illuminate these diverse theoretical avenues.

The issuance of an Expression of Concern by the journal editors suggests that Momeni’s pedagogical exposition of these advanced topics may have glossed over critical distinctions, perhaps mischaracterized key theoretical results, or presented speculative ideas as more established than they are. It is possible that in simplifying complex mathematical frameworks for a broader audience, certain nuances essential for accurate understanding have been lost, leading to potentially misleading conclusions or interpretations. The rigorous standards of physics peer review demand an uncompromising commitment to accuracy, and any perceived deviation from these standards, even if unintentional, necessitates a formal acknowledgment to safeguard the integrity of scientific progress.

This situation underscores the inherent difficulty in formulating a universally accepted theory of cosmic inflation. Despite its remarkable explanatory power, the standard inflationary model still faces theoretical challenges and a lack of direct observational evidence for the inflaton field itself. The search for alternative mechanisms, including those rooted in more exotic gravitational descriptions, remains an active and vital area of research. Momeni’s review, by bringing together a wide array of geometric and gravitational concepts, was intended to stimulate this search, but may have done so in a way that has provoked more questions than it has answered about the validity and clarity of the presented information.

The implications of this Editorial Expression of Concern extend far beyond the specific paper itself. It serves as a potent reminder of the critical role of careful scholarship and accurate representation in scientific communication. For aspiring cosmologists and students, understanding the foundational principles of gravity and spacetime is paramount. Any educational resource that misrepresents these principles, however inadvertently, can hinder rather than help. The scientific community will undoubtedly be dissecting Momeni’s review with renewed vigor, seeking to understand precisely what aspects have drawn the editors’ concern and how these might impact ongoing research into the earliest moments of our universe.

The paper’s focus on “From geometry to cosmology” highlights a fundamental philosophical and scientific trend: that our understanding of the universe at its grandest scales is intimately tied to our understanding of spacetime geometry at its most fundamental level. Momeni’s attempt to link abstract mathematical concepts like curvature and torsion to the tangible, albeit ancient, phenomenon of cosmic inflation represents a noble scientific endeavor. However, the subsequent Expression of Concern suggests that the bridge built between these disciplines in the review may have structural weaknesses that require immediate attention and potential repair before it can be safely traversed by the broader scientific community.

The publication of the paper in Eur. Phys. J. C (European Physical Journal C), a reputable journal known for its focus on particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology, adds weight to the significance of the Expression of Concern. Journals of this stature uphold rigorous peer-review processes, and the decision to issue such a notification indicates a significant problem identified by the editorial board and possibly by external reviewers as well. This event therefore becomes a case study in academic scrutiny, emphasizing the dynamic and self-correcting nature of scientific inquiry, where even well-intentioned comprehensive reviews can become catalysts for deeper investigation and clarification.

The discussion around Momeni’s review also implicitly questions the boundaries between pedagogical exposition and original research. While the paper is described as a “pedagogical review,” the concepts it engages with are at the cutting edge of theoretical physics. Bridging these domains requires an exceptional level of clarity and precision. The concern raised is a testament to the fact that simplifying complex scientific ideas for educational purposes must be done with scrupulous adherence to factual accuracy and theoretical rigor. Failure to do so can lead to the propagation of misunderstandings, potentially setting back the learning curve for many researchers.

In essence, this Editorial Expression of Concern serves as an urgent summons to the scientific community to re-examine the foundations of inflationary cosmology and the theoretical frameworks that aim to describe its very origins. It compels us to critically evaluate how abstract geometric concepts are translated into cosmological narratives and the reliability of alternative gravity theories in explaining our universe’s infancy. The potential for viral dissemination of this news underscores the fact that fundamental questions about our cosmos, especially those involving the frontiers of theoretical physics, capture the imagination and spark intense intellectual debate across the globe, making the process of scientific discovery and refinement a public spectacle of sorts.

The gravity of this situation cannot be overstated. If the concerns raised are substantial, they could necessitate a revision of how certain aspects of inflationary theory are presented and understood by a new generation of physicists. It highlights that even established cosmological paradigms like inflation are subject to ongoing refinement and challenge, and that the tools we use to probe them – our understanding of gravity, geometry, and theoretical frameworks – are themselves constantly evolving and require meticulous scrutiny. This is not merely an academic squabble; it is a potential recalibration of our cosmic origin story, driven by the relentless pursuit of scientific truth and accountability.

The widespread distribution of this news within scientific circles will undoubtedly foster a rigorous and transparent examination of Momeni’s work. This process, however uncomfortable it may be for the author and the publisher, is ultimately beneficial for the advancement of science. It ensures that scientific claims are robustly tested, that theoretical models are precisely articulated, and that educational content accurately reflects the current state of knowledge. The outcome of this heightened scrutiny will likely inform future research directions, potentially leading to clearer, more robust, and more verifiable theories about the universe’s most explosive beginnings.

This incident also serves as a potent reminder of the human element in scientific endeavor. While science strives for objectivity, the interpretation and presentation of complex theories can be subject to human judgment and error. The Editorial Expression of Concern, in this context, acts as a crucial safety mechanism, allowing the scientific community to collectively identify and address potential flaws, ensuring that the edifice of scientific knowledge is built on the strongest possible foundation, brick by careful brick. The ensuing discussion promises to be one of the most significant discussions of the year in theoretical physics.

Subject of Research: Cosmic Inflation, Gravitational Theories, Spacetime Geometry, Curvature, Torsion

Article Title: Editorial Expression of Concern: From geometry to cosmology: a pedagogical review of inflation in curvature, torsion, and extended gravity theories.

Article References:

Momeni, D. Editorial Expression of Concern: From geometry to cosmology: a pedagogical review of inflation in curvature, torsion, and extended gravity theories.
Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 1196 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14953-w

DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14953-w