This isn't about reported p-values. Sheldrick computed p-values from the reported treatment and control group samples. The latter are basic count data, not the

This isn't about reported p-values. Sheldrick computed p-values from the reported treatment and control group samples. The latter are basic count data, not the output of statistical software. So here we are talking about either the raw data being wrong, or this tiny amount of raw data being incorrectly summarized. Something like a column duplication would have resulted in perfectly identical data between treatment and control groups, which this data does not show. The best case scenario is an errant copy-paste or Excel formula that somehow presented both groups of data in a way that actually only looked at one of the two groups, but also somehow introduced small differences along the way. How exactly this could happen is beyond my imagination, but perhaps it introduces a sliver of doubt as to whether the paper is fraud by intention or merely by negligence.