RETRACTION: Impact of Butylparaben on β‐cell Damage and Insulin/PEPCK Expression in Zebrafish Larvae: Protective Effects of Morin

RETRACTION: M. Singh, A. Guru, R. Pachaiappan, B. O. Almutairi, S.j Arokiyaraj, M. Gopi, and J. Arockiaraj, “Impact of Butylparaben on β‐cell Damage and Insulin/PEPCK Expression in Zebrafish Larvae: Protective Effects of Morin,”
Journal of Biochemical and Molecular Toxicology
38, no. 1 (2024): e23520,
https://doi.org/10.1002/jbt.23520
.


The above article, published online on 26 August 2023, in Wiley Online Library (
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
), has been retracted by agreement between the journal Editor‐in‐Chief, Dr. Hari K. Bhat; and Wiley Periodicals LLC. A third party reported that this article had re‐used several images which had been published in an earlier article by many of the same authors (Guru et al. 2022 [
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-022-07882-4
]). The re‐used images are as follows: images in Figure 2 in this article were re‐used from Figure 1 in the earlier article; images in Figure 3 in this article were re‐used from Figure 2 in the earlier article; images in Figure 7 in this article were re‐used and manipulated from Figure 6 in the earlier article. All images were presented at different fluorescence intensity and labelled as having derived from different experiments and treatment from the earlier article. Further investigation by the publisher confirmed these images had been re‐used from the earlier article and also found that images in Figure 4a in this article were re‐used from Figure 3a in the earlier article.

The authors responded to an inquiry by the publisher and stated that no images had been re‐used across different studies and that all images included in these publications were independently acquired during distinct experimental procedures. The authors provided copies of all images included in the article but did not supply any other data that could be used to qualify the originality of these experiments.
The retraction has been agreed to because the evidence of image duplications across different articles, each of which reports on different experimental conditions, fundamentally compromises the editor's confidence in the conclusions of this article. The authors disagree with the retraction.