A study published in PLOS One last year has been retracted due to concerns over its reliability and the integrity of its research process. The paper, “Natural gas price prediction based on artificial intelligence models,” originally published in December 2025, was withdrawn by the journal’s editors on February 23, 2026, following revelations of flawed citations and undisclosed use of AI tools. This retraction highlights a growing concern within academic publishing regarding the responsible application of artificial intelligence in research.
The issues came to light after a review revealed that numerous references cited within the study—specifically references 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 20, 29, 32, 34, 49, 55, 57, 60, 61, 73, and 74—did not, in fact, support the claims made by the authors. Further compounding the problem, reference number 3 had already been retracted prior to the publication of the PLOS One study. These citation errors raise serious questions about the thoroughness of the research and the verification process undertaken by the authors.
AI Tool Usage and Transparency
Beyond the citation issues, the retraction also stems from a failure to disclose the use of artificial intelligence tools during the preparation of the manuscript. The authors admitted to utilizing AI for language polishing and text sorting, but did not initially declare this practice, which is a breach of PLOS One’s policy on Artificial Intelligence Tools and Technologies. The increasing use of AI in academic writing is prompting journals to establish clear guidelines for transparency, ensuring readers can assess the extent to which AI may have influenced the research and its presentation. The debate around AI’s role in scholarly work centers on maintaining the originality and accountability of research findings.
Authors’ Response and Editorial Decision
The first author of the study acknowledged the errors in reference verification, according to the retraction notice. While two of the authors, identified as XL and MS, agreed with the decision to retract the paper, attempts to reach the remaining authors—MT, YF, TF, and ZW—were unsuccessful. The PLOS One editors ultimately determined that the cumulative issues surrounding the study compromised its reliability and the integrity of its provenance, leading to the retraction. This decision underscores the importance of rigorous fact-checking and transparent reporting in maintaining the credibility of scientific research.
Broader Implications for Academic Publishing
This case arrives amid a wider conversation about the impact of AI on academic publishing. A recent editorial published in PLOS Biology in June 2025, “A scientific future shared with AI,” discussed the increasing prevalence of AI tools throughout the research lifecycle, from hypothesis generation to manuscript drafting. The authors of that editorial highlighted the demand for researchers and publishers to adapt to this evolving landscape while upholding the standards of scientific rigor. The use of tools like ChatGPT, which gained prominence in 2022, has introduced both opportunities and challenges for the academic community.
The retraction of the natural gas price prediction study serves as a cautionary tale, emphasizing the critical need for researchers to meticulously verify their sources and transparently disclose their use of AI tools. As AI becomes increasingly integrated into the research process, maintaining the integrity and trustworthiness of scientific publications will require ongoing vigilance and adaptation from both authors and publishers. The incident also raises questions about the potential for AI to inadvertently introduce errors or biases into research, necessitating careful scrutiny and validation of AI-generated content.
The PLOS One Editors have stated that they will continue to review and refine their policies regarding AI tool usage to ensure the quality and reliability of published research. Researchers are encouraged to familiarize themselves with these policies and adhere to best practices for responsible AI integration. Further updates on this and other retractions can be found on the PLOS One website.
This retraction underscores the ongoing need for careful oversight and adherence to ethical standards in academic research, particularly as artificial intelligence plays an increasingly prominent role in the scientific process. The incident serves as a reminder that even with the aid of advanced technologies, the fundamental principles of accuracy, transparency, and accountability remain paramount.
Readers seeking further information on retractions and research integrity are encouraged to consult resources provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and other organizations dedicated to promoting responsible research conduct.
