Animals paper on endangered Korean fish is retracted: full analysis

A 2023 Animals paper on spawning habitat selection in Pseudopungtungia tenuicorpa, an endangered fish species endemic to South Korea, has been retracted, based on the source record supplied for this story. The article, by Jong-Yun Choi and Seong-Ki Kim, was originally published on July 1, 2023, in MDPI’s Animals and presented an ecological explanation for the species’ narrow geographic range. MDPI’s currently accessible article page still shows the original publication details and study text, even though the source data for this item identifies the paper as retracted. (mdpi.com)

The now-retracted study focused on whether the fish’s spawning behavior could explain why P. tenuicorpa is found only in parts of the upper Han River. The authors surveyed five streams during the April-to-June 2020 spawning period and reported that eggs were found most often in rock cracks, especially those smaller than 5 cm, with nests of Coreoperca herzi used as an alternative habitat. The paper framed that pattern as an “evolutionary strategy” and linked it to conservation needs for a species the authors described as endangered in Korea. (mdpi.com)

In its published form, the article went beyond descriptive ecology. It argued that small cracks offered protection from predators, reduced habitat sharing with other fish species, and may have helped shape the species’ present-day distribution. The paper also suggested that anthropogenic disturbance, including recreation and sediment disruption, was damaging those habitats, and it floated habitat restoration ideas such as artificially creating suitable cracks. Those are the kinds of claims that can influence conservation priorities, grant framing, and secondary citation chains, which is why a retraction matters even when the subject is a niche fish ecology paper. (mdpi.com)

What’s less clear, at least from publicly accessible material surfaced in this search, is the reason for the retraction. The MDPI article page available through search did not display a visible retraction banner in the retrieved text, and a targeted search did not surface a standalone MDPI retraction notice or Crossref record explaining the basis for withdrawal. Crossref’s general Crossmark documentation shows that retraction status and links to notices are typically handled through metadata updates, but that explanatory notice was not readily available in the materials retrieved here. (mdpi.com)

I also looked for outside reaction, including Retraction Watch coverage, PubPeer discussion, and other expert commentary. I did not find specific commentary on this paper in the retrieved results. I did, however, confirm broader background on the species and the paper’s scientific framing through MDPI and related literature, including references describing P. tenuicorpa as a Korean endemic freshwater fish with a limited distribution. That means the current story is more about the withdrawal itself and the reliability of the record than about a broader public controversy, at least based on what was publicly easy to verify. (mdpi.com)

Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, especially those following animal welfare science, conservation medicine, aquatic animal health, or research integrity, the key point is that a retraction breaks the chain of trust around a paper’s findings. Even if this study doesn’t affect companion animal care, journals like Animals are part of the evidence ecosystem many clinicians, academics, and policy readers rely on. Retractions are reminders to verify whether cited animal studies remain part of the valid literature before using them in teaching, reviews, policy submissions, or conservation recommendations. (mdpi.com)

What to watch: The next step is a clearer public record, ideally a formal retraction notice stating the date and reason, plus metadata updates that propagate to indexing services and citation managers. It’s also worth watching whether the journal or publisher issues any broader clarification if related articles or overlapping datasets come under review. (crossref.org)