Integrity Review Report: Pancreatic Cancer Cells Induce MicroRNA Deregulation in Platelets (Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 11438)

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

This report assesses a 2022 paper published in MDPI's International Journal of Molecular Sciences (doi:10.3390/ijms231911438) that investigates how pancreatic cancer cells alter platelet microRNAs. Verdict: highly suspicious. Four categories of issues were identified. (1) Severe copy-paste artifacts remain in the published PDF, including visible 'FOR PEER REVIEW' watermarks and raw axis labels embedded in the body text. (2) A critical numerical inconsistency: the Results section states a 2.4-fold increase in the stem-like fraction from extreme limiting dilution analysis, while the Figure 3 caption claims a 10-fold increase. (3) The thrombopoietin (TPO) concentration is reported as 100 ng/mL in Results but 10 ng/mL in Materials and Methods, a tenfold discrepancy, with inconsistent abbreviation of valproic acid (VA vs. AV). (4) The manuscript was received, accepted, and published within 26 days (2 Sept–28 Sept 2022), an unusually rapid turnaround for a study involving patient samples, multi-week assays, and microarray analyses. These issues collectively suggest inadequate editorial oversight and possible data inconsistency. Confidence is moderate to high for textual and numerical inconsistencies; the rapid timeline is suggestive but not conclusive. Final determination requires institutional investigation.

Verdict

🟠 Highly suspicious. Multiple internal contradictions, severe copy-paste artifacts, and an unusually rapid publication timeline cast serious doubt on editorial quality and data reliability.

Key findings

Unedited 'FOR PEER REVIEW' watermark text and raw axis labels embedded in published manuscript body (Figures 1–4 region).
Core ELDA result contradicts itself: Results text states a 2.4-fold increase in the stem-like fraction, while the Figure 3 caption states approximately 10-fold.
TPO concentration discrepancy of 10×: Results states 100 ng/mL; Materials and Methods states 10 ng/mL.
Inconsistent abbreviation of valproic acid within the same paper (VA in Results, AV in Methods).
Manuscript timeline: Received 2 September 2022; Accepted 13 September 2022; Published 28 September 2022 (26 days end-to-end, 11 days from submission to acceptance), despite multi-week assays and clinical sample collection.

Evidence highlights

doi: 10.3390/ijms231911438
Conflict quote (Results §2.3): "We found a 2.4-fold increase in the stem-like fraction in cells co-cultured with platelets."
Conflict quote (Figure 3 caption): "The presence of platelets increases the ratio of stem cells of BxPC−3 cells about 10 times more than in control cells."
Conflict quote (Results): "100 ng/mL of thrombopoietin (TPO)".
Conflict quote (Methods, Platelet production from MEG-01 cells): "TPO was used at a concentration of 10 ng/mL".
Embedded draft artifacts observed in PDF text layer, e.g., "Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 15", "Absorbance (a.u) Log fraction nonresponding", and stray numeric strings "0 2 6 4 8".
Timeline markers on article citation page: Received 2 September 2022; Accepted 13 September 2022; Published 28 September 2022.

Notes

The textual artifacts (category 1) indicate sloppiness in manuscript preparation rather than data fabrication per se, but they reinforce concerns about proofreading and peer review.
The 2.4-fold vs. 10-fold discrepancy is the most serious finding; it directly affects a stated biological conclusion and cannot be dismissed as a minor typo given the magnitude.
The TPO discrepancy (100 vs. 10 ng/mL) raises concerns about reproducibility but may conceivably reflect an unflagged revision between Results and Methods drafts.
The rapid 11-day acceptance is consistent with editorial patterns widely discussed in MDPI venues but is not, on its own, evidence of misconduct.
Recommended actions: request raw ELDA data and original plates from the corresponding author; post a structured PubPeer comment; notify IJMS editorial office of internal inconsistencies.
Limitations: this analysis is based on the published text and figures only; underlying data, raw images, and peer-review records were not accessed. Some quoted phrasing may differ in layout from the typeset version; all numeric quotations above are reproduced verbatim from the source PDF text layer as reported.