PLOS One retracts arterial blood flow model after publication process concerns
PLOS One has retracted a paper describing a mathematical model of blood flow in a stenosed artery with post-stenotic dilatation and a forced field after editors identified concerns about potential manipulation of the publication process, peer review integrity, and authorship. Those concerns were severe enough to call into question both the validity and the provenance of the reported results.
The retraction lands squarely in the technical heart of computational hemodynamics, where the credibility of a model depends not only on equations and boundary conditions, but also on a transparent record of how the work moved through review and who was responsible for it. When publication process concerns arise in a paper built around vascular flow mechanics, the uncertainty extends beyond editorial housekeeping. It reaches the reader’s ability to trust the model itself.
The original article, published in 2022, examined blood flow in a narrowed artery with downstream dilation under a forced field. The subject sits at the intersection of fluid mechanics and vascular disease, a space where mathematical models are often used to characterize flow disturbance, pressure gradients, and the mechanical consequences of arterial narrowing. In a stenosed vessel, changes in geometry alone can alter velocity profiles and wall shear stress; adding post-stenotic dilation introduces a further geometric transition that can intensify complex flow patterns. A forced field, in turn, suggests an additional external influence on the system being modeled.
Those scientific themes are not trivial. Even in purely theoretical work, vascular models are meant to provide a structured approximation of what happens when blood moves through diseased arteries. If the editorial and authorship record is compromised, the equations can no longer be interpreted in the usual way, because the paper’s place in the scholarly record is itself uncertain.
The editors said the article is being withdrawn because the concerns cast doubt on the reported findings. The notice did not offer a technical critique of the mathematics, nor did it identify a specific error in the model formulation, numerical method, or results section. Instead, the retraction centers on the integrity of the process that brought the article into print. In modern biomedical publishing, that distinction can be decisive. A paper may appear methodologically sophisticated on the page, yet still fail the threshold for trust if the peer review pathway or authorship provenance is unreliable.
One sentence in the retraction notice makes the consequence plain: the validity of the results is in question. For readers, that means the paper should no longer be treated as dependable evidence, even if the topic remains scientifically legitimate. In computational medicine, where later work may cite a model as a starting point for simulation, parameter selection, or comparison with clinical observations, a retraction can remove a piece of the scaffold on which subsequent analysis might otherwise rest.
A small but important part of the notice concerns author response. MD, GS, MRE, and UB did not agree with the retraction. RS, WJ, SG, and RC either did not respond directly or could not be reached. That split matters because it shows the editors acted despite disagreement from some of the named authors. Retractions are not always unanimous, and disagreement does not stop an editorial board from withdrawing a paper when it concludes that the integrity of the record has been compromised.
The article itself is now formally marked as retracted, and the retraction notice identifies the paper by title and citation. For databases, indexing services, and researchers who may encounter the article in a search result or reference list, the practical effect is straightforward: the original publication should be interpreted through the lens of the retraction, not as a stable contribution to the literature.
No patient data are involved here, and no bedside intervention is being directly challenged. Even so, the implications extend into clinical science more broadly. Mathematical models of arterial flow are often used to inform how investigators think about stenosis, dilation, and disturbed hemodynamics. When those models are published under a cloud of potential manipulation, the problem is not simply abstract misconduct. It weakens confidence in the route by which technical ideas move from a manuscript into the scientific record.
The retraction notice closes that chapter without offering a replacement analysis or a corrected model. What remains is a formal withdrawal of the article and a clear statement that the editors no longer stand behind the work as published. For a paper centered on altered blood flow in diseased arteries, that is a decisive endpoint. The manuscript is still visible, but its authority has been removed.
What is missing from the notice is just as important as what is included. There is no detailed breakdown of the suspected manipulation, no re-analysis of the model, and no supplementary technical audit of the equations. Readers are left with an editorial conclusion rather than a mechanistic autopsy. In a field where reproducibility depends on transparent methods and reliable authorship, that absence leaves the paper unsuitable as a foundation for further scientific citation or clinical extrapolation.