This case provides us with an opportunity to share two reflections: 1) Be careful when it comes to the reuse of data without explanation; and 2 the need for junior academics to check data provided by more experienced colleagues. In this reported case, the colleague who is suspected of data manipulation has moved on to collecting data on spiders in Northern Australia.
This week, the researchers have retracted a second paper, this one in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, for the same reasons — duplicated data without a reasonable explanation.
Dan Bolnick, the editor of the American Naturalist, tells us:
After learning about the problems in the  data set, I asked an associate editor to look at data sets in other publications in the American Naturalist [on which Pruitt was a co-author] and we have indeed found what appears to be repeated data that don’t seem to have a biological explanation.
He isn’t alone. Bolnick added:
I am aware that there are concerns affecting a large number of papers at multiple other journals, and at this point I’m aware of co-authors of his who have contacted editors at 23 journals as of January 26.