Forensic Review Report: 'Peer assumption: an illusory consensus hidden in the criminal responsibility of juvenile offender—evidence from psychology' (DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1321870)

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

This report assesses the article by Sanyang Liu et al., published in Frontiers in Psychology (2024), and assigns an overall verdict of 'highly suspicious' (高度可疑). Four issues were verified. Most serious is a clear arithmetic inconsistency in Table 1, where a frequency of 69 is paired with a percentage of 48.1% against an N=187 denominator, yielding an actual proportion of ~36.9%, not 48.1%. Second, the authors claim inability to enter a juvenile correctional facility due to COVID-19 policies, yet cite 2023 economic data and submitted the manuscript in October 2023, after China had largely lifted pandemic restrictions by late 2022/early 2023—a temporal mismatch. Third, the Methods describe the B-DSS as developed 'in 2016' while citing a 2004 reference. Fourth, independent-sample t-tests are run directly between 187 offenders and 2,449 students drawn from a different province and a separate (Shang et al., 2022) dataset, raising data-pooling concerns. All four findings were marked as verified (✅). Detection is AI-assisted; the final determination requires institutional investigation.

Verdict

🟠 Highly suspicious. Four issues were identified and verified. Statistical inconsistency in Table 1 is the strongest signal; the COVID-19 timeline claim and citation/scale-year mismatch further indicate sloppy or non-rigorous writing. Independent institutional review is warranted.

Key findings

Arithmetic inconsistency in Table 1 (Offense committed)
Frequency = 69; percentage = 48.1%, but denominator = 187.
69 ÷ 187 ≈ 0.3689 (36.9%), not 48.1%; conversely, 48.1% of 187 ≈ 90.
The 48.1% value appears fabricated or copy-pasted from an unrelated source; using 36.9% sums Table 1 to exactly 100%, indicating a paste-and-forget error.
Severity: 🔴 Critical. Status: ✅ Verified.
Temporal inconsistency with COVID-19 policy justification
Authors state inability to enter a juvenile correctional facility due to COVID-19 control policies; the manuscript cites 2023 economic data (PCDIS = ¥52,674 in 2023) and was submitted on 15 October 2023.
China largely lifted COVID-19 restrictions in late 2022 / early 2023; using COVID-19 access restrictions as a justification by mid-to-late 2023 is inconsistent with the documented timeline.
Severity: 🟠 Serious. Status: ✅ Verified.
Year mismatch in scale citation
Text states: "In 2016, Spencer-Rodgers and colleagues developed a self-report questionnaire called the Dialectical Self Scale (DSS) (Spencer-Rodgers et al., 2004)."
A 2016 development claim paired with a 2004 reference is internally inconsistent and reflects lax writing or template artifacts.
Severity: 🟡 Moderate. Status: ✅ Verified.
Methodological / data-pooling concern in t-test comparison
Independent-sample t-tests compare 187 juvenile offenders from Province J with 2,449 general students from Province S, reusing data from Shang et al., 2022.
Cross-province, cross-population comparison with a 1:13 sample-size ratio raises concerns about forced data assembly and lack of basic control.
Severity: 🟡 Moderate. Status: ✅ Verified.

Evidence highlights

Table 1 (Sample basic information), Offense committed = Rape: f=69, %=48.1%, N=187 → expected % ≈ 36.9% (or expected f ≈ 90).
Original wording (p. 4): "In order to comply with the policy requirements for the prevention and control of the novel coronavirus epidemic, researchers could not personally enter the juvenile offenders' correctional center to issue questionnaires..."
Original wording (p. 4): "PCDIS = [¥52,674] in 2023."
Submission date referenced: 15 October 2023.
Original wording (p. 4): "In 2016, Spencer-Rodgers and colleagues developed a self-report questionnaire called the Dialectical Self Scale (DSS) (Spencer-Rodgers et al., 2004)."
Comparison: n=187 offenders vs. n=2,449 students (Shang et al., 2022).

Notes

DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1321870
Reported follow-up actions logged: requested original data from authors; raised concerns on PubPeer; submitted complaint to the journal editorial office. Institutional ethics committee complaint not yet filed.
Limitations: this is an AI-assisted review; the conclusions are indicative, not definitive. Some claims (e.g., exact internal statistics, original raw SPSS files) should be cross-checked against the publisher's supplementary materials and the authors' raw datasets. The investigators explicitly note potential false positives and false negatives. Final adjudication rests with the publisher and the authors' home institutions.