There are few fundamental rulings in the Justice system. By claiming somebody else is also guilty, we cannot claim that we are not guilty. Secondly, misconduct in science with sixty-five or more odd fabricated figures cannot be equated with one or two figures which are not kind of confirmed bec’s of controls. Admittedly, both the things are fraud, but there is a thin margin and gradation where you can differentiate between fraud at a small scale or honest mistake by ignorance and large scale fraudulent science. We admit that even a simple honest ignorance of publishing wrong data is misconduct in science. But the acceptance of the same by the corresponding Author as a mistake is possible in different manners. We claim that whosoever comes forward to take up the responsibilities of their mistakes are real Scientists. You scientists are all are liable to do such type of mistakes knowingly or unknowingly. But some mistakes are bec’s of the peer pressure. But you please take the credit or discredit of those mistakes. We are sure that they will make you absolutely transparent. But @SKS, how can you manage sixty odd fraud data? Whatever you have obtained so far are based on your manipulated published data. Can you show your guts by retracting all the papers as all of them look like are based on fabricated data! You shall be a winner at the end!