Fraud Detection Report: Construction of an Early Warning Monitoring Standard System for Lung Cancer in China Based on the Delphi Method

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

This report, prepared by the 'Geng student' academic fraud detection initiative, assesses a 2026 paper published in Chinese General Practice (Chinese Journal of General Practice, DOI: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2026.0066) by Wei Zhimin and colleagues, which uses the Delphi method to construct an early warning monitoring standard system for lung cancer in China. The overall verdict is 'highly suspicious' (orange rating). The central finding is a severe internal mathematical contradiction in the indicator-counting logic. The authors state that the initial system contained 4 first-level, 17 second-level, and 73 third-level indicators. They claim that after the first Delphi round, 1 first-level, 3 second-level, and 5 third-level indicators were deleted. However, they then report that only 3 first-level, 7 second-level, and 28 third-level indicators remained—implying that 7 second-level and 40 third-level indicators vanished without explanation. This arithmetic inconsistency undermines the paper's core methodology. Confidence in the finding is high because the numbers are quoted directly from the paper. No image or statistical issues were flagged in this report; the conclusion is restricted to the methodological/arithmetical anomaly.

Verdict

🟠 Highly suspicious. A single but severe internal arithmetic contradiction was identified in the indicator-screening logic of the Delphi process. This alone is sufficient to cast substantial doubt on the rigor of the study.

Key findings

Methodological arithmetic collapse (Indicator-counting logic). The paper reports an initial system of 4 first-level, 17 second-level, and 73 third-level indicators. It states that after the first expert consultation round, 1 first-level, 3 second-level, and 5 third-level indicators were deleted. However, it then states that the system forwarded to round 2 contained only 3 first-level, 7 second-level, and 28 third-level indicators.
Second-level: 17 − 3 = 14 expected, but 7 reported (7 unaccounted).
Third-level: 73 − 5 = 68 expected, but 28 reported (40 unaccounted).
Implication. Either the reported deletions are incorrect, the retained counts are incorrect, or additional (unreported) rounds of deletions occurred. In any case, the indicator accounting—which is the core of a Delphi-based standard-system construction—is internally inconsistent.

Evidence highlights

Source location. Section 2.5.1 "Results of the first round of expert consultation" (Page 4 of the manuscript).
Quoted claims (translated from Chinese).
DOI of the paper under review: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2026.0066.

Notes

The report is based solely on textual/arithmetical analysis; no image manipulation or statistical testing was performed or reported here.
The detected contradiction is arithmetically verifiable from figures stated explicitly in the manuscript, so confidence in the finding itself is high.
The report does not assert intentional misconduct; plausible (non-fraudulent) explanations include drafting errors, missing revisions, or unreported intermediate deletions. Nonetheless, the inconsistency must be resolved before the work can be considered scientifically sound.
Recommended next steps suggested by the original report (not yet executed): request raw expert-scoring and indicator-screening logs from the authors; post a concern on PubPeer; and notify the journal editorial office to issue an erratum or clarification.