Risk Perception Perspective on University Students' AIGC Trust Attitudes and Forwarding Intention — Integrity Review

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

Verdict: highly suspicious. Key issues: (1) numerical contradiction between Table 5 (interaction β = −0.0304) and the path-model figure (−0.0380, ns) for the same risk-controllability → low-risk forwarding link; (2) sampling inconsistency — authors claim a 41:49:8:2 quota (associate:bachelor:master:doctoral) yet Table 1 shows bachelor (40.92%) below associate (42.81%) and master (14.22%) nearly double the target 8%; (3) temporal paradox — DOI suffix 2026.01.010 implies January 2026 publication, yet references include issues dated 2026 issues 3 and 4 (e.g., ref [3] in 《网络安全技术与应用》2026(3); ref [26] in 《传播与版权》2026(4)); (4) widespread abnormal spacing in the body suggestive of OCR/paste artifacts. Confidence is high for the path-coefficient mismatch and temporal paradox (objective and verifiable); the sampling issue is strong but may reflect sampling/recruitment failure rather than fabrication. No image-based checks were possible.

Verdict

� Highly suspicious. Multiple internal inconsistencies and probable methodological irregularities, warranting editorial and institutional investigation.

Key findings

Internal data contradiction: Table 5 reports an interaction term β = −0.0304 for the low-risk forwarding model, whereas the path-model figure shows the path from perceived risk controllability to low-risk forwarding as −0.0380, ns — a mismatch of ~0.008 for the same relationship.
Sampling–quota mismatch: Authors state a quota of approximately 41 : 49 : 8 : 2 (associate : bachelor : master : doctoral), but Table 1 reports 42.81% associate (n=271) and 40.92% bachelor (n=259) — reversing the intended ranking — with master share at 14.22%, nearly double the 8% target.
Temporal paradox in references: DOI suffix 10-1318/c.2026.01.010 implies a 2026 issue 1 publication. Yet references cite 《网络安全技术与应用》2026(3) [ref 3] and 《传播与版权》2026(4) [ref 26], which post-date the article itself; ref [1] cites 《管理世界》2025(6), which is plausible.
Text formatting anomalies: Abnormal intra-character spaces (e.g., "本文在风险感知", "AIG C", "6 3 3") consistent with PDF copy-paste or low-quality OCR/translation tooling rather than native Word authoring.

Evidence highlights

Table 5 vs. path-model figure: β = −0.0304 (table) vs. −0.0380, ns (figure), same low-risk forwarding relationship.
Quota plan: 41 : 49 : 8 : 2 vs. observed 42.81% : 40.92% : 14.22% : (residual), with bachelor share below associate despite a higher target.
DOI: 10.16034/j.cnki.10-1318/c.2026.01.010; reference [3] in 2026 issue 3; reference [26] in 2026 issue 4.
Text examples of broken spacing observed throughout the abstract and body.

Notes

No figures suitable for pixel-level image-manipulation analysis were available; Western blot/PS checks were not performed.
The sampling deviation could in principle arise from recruitment failure rather than data fabrication, but the magnitude and reversal of the dominant stratum warrant an explanation.
DOI and numeric values are preserved verbatim from the source report.