Geng Academic Integrity Report — Ghezelhesar & Bozorgi-Amiri (2022), "A novel approach to selection of resilient measures portfolio under disruption and uncertainty: a case study of e-payment service providers"

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

Verdict: No academic misconduct detected on the basis of the available material. The submitted evidence for this review consisted only of the article's title, author names, journal metadata, abstract snippet, and DOI, with no body text, figures, tables, methods, or reference list. Consequently, none of the image-reuse, data-fabrication, statistical, or citation analyses of the Geng six-method scan could be executed. The only anomalies observed were OCR/PDF-extraction artefacts (e.g., the DOI string ending in "1 3" and garbled fragments such as "destruc- tive", "a ect", " nancial", "modi ed"), which are attributable to text extraction rather than author intent. The publication timeline (Received 27 Jul 2021; Accepted 9 Apr 2022; Published online 21 Jun 2022) falls well within normal review cadence for Operational Research. Confidence in the 'no misconduct' verdict is therefore low: it reflects the absence of incriminating evidence rather than positive confirmation of integrity.

Verdict

No academic misconduct detected based on the limited text supplied (title, metadata, and partial abstract). The result should be treated as inconclusive rather than exonerating, because no figures, tables, methods, statistical outputs, or reference list were available for inspection. DOI: 10.1007/s12351-022-00709-x.

Key findings

Insufficient evidence for deep forensic review. The provided material contains only the article header and an OCR-corrupted abstract fragment; no Figures, Tables, Methods, or References were supplied.
OCR / PDF-extraction artefacts, not fraud indicators.
DOI rendered as https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-022-00709-x1 3 (trailing "1 3" is a likely extraction artefact).
Abstract contains garbled tokens such as destruc- tive, a ect (affect), nancial (financial), modi ed (modified).
Publication timeline is consistent and chronologically sound. Received 27 July 2021; Revised 26 January 2022; Accepted 9 April 2022; Published online 21 June 2022 — roughly 9 months end-to-end, normal for Operational Research.
Six-method Geng scan could not be applied. Image reuse, data fabrication, splicing, p-hacking, productivity anomalies, and citation/methodology checks all require content not provided.

Evidence highlights

Source file referenced: 44-15.pdf.
Journal: *Operational Research* (2022), 22:5477–5527.
DOI: 10.1007/s12351-022-00709-x.
Authors: Ahmad Jafari Ghezelhesar, Ali Bozorgi-Amiri.
Timeline: Received 2021-07-27; Accepted 2022-04-09; Published 2022-06-21.
Topic indicated by abstract fragments: resilient-measure portfolio selection under disruption/uncertainty, multi-objective model, light-robust method, e-payment service provider case study.

Notes

Limitation of this review: A fraud-detection verdict of "clean" is meaningful only when full text, figures, tables, raw data, and references have been examined. In this case, the absence of such material means the verdict reflects "nothing suspicious found in the header," not "nothing suspicious exists in the paper."
Recommended next steps: supply the complete PDF (including Methods, Results, all Tables, all Figures, and the References list) to enable (i) image-duplication and splicing analysis, (ii) statistical consistency checks on any reported p-values, F-values, or descriptive statistics, (iii) verification that the e-payment provider case-study data have a traceable real-world source rather than synthetic/random-number generation, and (iv) cross-checks on cited equipment, software versions, and any ethics approvals.
All flagged textual oddities are most plausibly PDF/OCR artefacts; they are recorded here for transparency but do not constitute misconduct indicators.