Reviewer integrity report: 'Theoretical basis and occurrence of internet fraud victimisation: Based on two systems in decision-making and reasoning' (Frontiers in Psychology, 2023)

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

This report flags the systematic review by Shang, Wang, Tian, Zhou, Ma, and Liu (DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1087463) as highly suspicious on the basis of internal numerical and typographical inconsistencies, not image-based fraud. Key issues: (1) In the PRISMA-style screening paragraph, the text shifts from 223 to 233 remaining articles without explanation, then claims that combining 233 previously screened articles with 9 newly found articles yields a final database of 232—an arithmetic impossibility. (2) Table 2 misaligns β and p values for Vishwanath et al. (2016), juxtaposing two distinct coefficients and significance levels in a single fragment ("−0.04, −0.17 = 0.66 < 0.001"). No Western blots, microscopy, flow cytometry, or raw statistics were available, so image duplication or fabricated datasets could not be assessed. Overall verdict: highly suspicious due to careless or possibly fabricated numerical reporting. Confidence in the flagged textual errors is high, but final adjudication of misconduct requires editorial investigation.

Verdict

Highly suspicious. The paper contains internally inconsistent arithmetic in its literature screening section and visibly misaligned statistical entries in Table 2. These errors suggest either extremely careless copy-editing or, less likely, fabricated reporting. No image-based fraud could be tested because the article is a systematic review without experimental figures or raw data.

Key findings

PRISMA arithmetic inconsistency (high severity): Within the screening paragraph the author reports 223 remaining articles, later refers to 233 articles previously screened, and then states that adding 9 newly identified articles to 233 yields a database of 232. The mathematics 233 + 9 = 242, not 232, and the 223 vs. 233 discrepancy is unexplained.
Table 2 typographical/statistical misalignment (medium severity): The row for Vishwanath et al. (2016) combines two β values (−0.04 and −0.17) with a single significance statement "= 0.66 < 0.001," conflating a non-significant result with a highly significant one.
Limited detectability (informational): Because the manuscript contains only a PRISMA flow diagram and conceptual model figure, pixel-level image forensics and reuse checks were not feasible.
Editorial lapse: The reported inconsistencies would be detectable by routine proofreading and basic statistical review, suggesting weak editorial oversight at the journal level.

Evidence highlights

Exact quote from the screening paragraph: *"For the remaining 223 articles... We found that 9 articles were not included in these 233 articles... We included these 9 articles and 233 articles previously screened into the analysis. Then, a database of 232 articles was built."*
Exact quote from Table 2 (Vishwanath et al., 2016 row): *"Study 1: −0.04, Study 2: −0.17 = 0.66 < 0.001."*
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1087463; year 2023; journal Frontiers in Psychology.

Notes

This review identifies textual and arithmetic anomalies only; it does not constitute proof of intentional misconduct. Image-based fraud detection tools were not applicable.
Recommended follow-up actions: contact the authors for clarification, post a structured query on PubPeer, and request an erratum or correction from the publisher.
The 223/233/232 discrepancy and the Table 2 misalignment are consistent with copy-paste drafting errors, but they could also mask deeper reporting problems; an editorial audit of the underlying review methodology is advisable.