Rough on Roughnecks

For the kind attention of the public please! All through the night, I performed a post publication peer review of this IIT Roorke paper that claimed that it identified chemical components in cow urine that could highly efectively kill Chikungunya virus in lab conditions. pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs… There are serious concerns in the paper that mandate post publication Editorial Review from the Journal and Publication Integrity Office, and need for validation of findings... that could mandate a retraction as per COPE Guidelines. A document with all concerns explained has been emailed to: 🟡Professor (Dr) Thomas F. Hofmann Editor-in-Chief ACS Agricultural Science & Technology 🟡Copy to: Publication Integrity Office ACS Publications, American Chemical Society 🟡Copy to: Professor (Dr) Laura McConnell Deputy Editor, ACS Agricultural Science & Technology 🟡Copy to:William King, The Managing Editor American Chemical Society A lay summary of major concerns are provided below: 🔴Possible areas of data fabrication, manipulation, and internal contradictions in the study claiming antiviral activity of cow urine distillate (CUD). 🔴Identical efficacy values reported for different experimental conditions, suggesting possible data duplication or carryover. 🔴Methodological flaws, including testing at cytotoxic concentrations, invalidating antiviral claims. 🔴Manipulation of synergy thresholds, using non-standard cut-offs to falsely claim synergism. 🔴Inconsistent and contradictory GC–MS datasets, with discrepancies in metabolite identification and absent compounds. 🔴Identification of synthetic pharmaceuticals, such as medroxyprogesterone, as natural metabolites, indicating contamination or misreporting. 🔴Implausible detection of prostaglandin A1, which is unstable and unlikely to survive high-temperature distillation. 🔴Lack of direct evidence linking identified metabolites to antiviral effects, with concentrations in CUD unverified. 🔴Cytotoxicity confounding viral inhibition results, with host cell death possibly causing false positives. 🔴Weak in silico and biochemical data, with docking scores and enzyme inhibition results unreliable. 🔴Structural inaccuracies in molecular docking, such as improbable hydrogen bonds. 🔴Statistical and analytical misrepresentations, including inappropriate synergy thresholds and wide variability without proper significance testing. 🔴Undeclared conflicts of interest, as funding sources and author affiliations favor traditional and cow-derived products. 🔴Numerous inconsistencies across figures and tables, including contradictory retention times and unlabelled peaks, undermining data credibility. Requesting for action from the Journal @ACSPublications @AmerChemSociety @ACSReactions ➡️Initiate an editorial review under ACS and COPE guidelines. ➡️Obtain raw data: plaque counts, cell viability, GC–MS spectra, and metabolite quantification.Verify compound identifications and concentrations with independent analysis. ➡️Reassess the validity of the claimed antiviral mechanism based on verified data. ➡️Reevaluate synergy analyses using standard criteria. ➡️Consider issuing an Expression of Concern pending investigation. ➡️If unresolved, proceed with retraction to protect scientific integrity and public health.