ArticlePloS one2023
Did a bot eat your homework? An assessment of the potential impact of bad actors in online administration of preference surveys.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding Patient Preferences for Medication Process Attributes: A Systematic Literature Review.The patient · 2026Pooled it
- Safeguarding Online Research in Eating Disorders Against Fraud: Increasing Risks and Practical Recommendations.The International journal of eating disorders · 2026Article
- Surveys in clinical research: methodological aspects and practical guidance.Critical care science · 2026Review
- Engaging Underserved Populations in Health Preference Research: Challenges and Strategies.The patient · 2025Article
- Imposters, Bots, and Other Threats to Data Integrity in Online Research: Scoping Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Best Practices.Online journal of public health informatics · 2025Review
- An Overview of Data Collection in Health Preference Research.The patient · 2025Review
- Identifying and Managing Fraudulent Respondents in Online Stated Preferences Surveys: A Case Example from Best-Worst Scaling in Health Preferences Research.The patient · 2025Article
- Making Use of Technology to Improve Stated Preference Studies.The patient · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOnline administration of surveys has a number of advantages but can also lead to increased exposure to bad actors (human and non-human bots) who can try to influence the study results or to benefit financially from the survey. We analyze data collected through an online discrete-choice experiment (DCE) survey to evaluate the likelihood that bad actors can affect the quality of the data collected.
methodsWe developed and fielded a survey instrument that included two sets of DCE questions asking respondents to select their preferred treatments for multiple myeloma therapies. The survey also included questions to assess respondents' attention while completing the survey and their understanding of the DCE questions. We used a latent-class model to identify a class associated with perverse preferences or high model variance, and the degree to which the quality checks included in the survey were correlated with class membership. Class-membership probabilities for the problematic class were used as weights in a random-parameters logit to recover population-level estimates that minimizes exposure to potential bad actors.
resultsResults show a significant proportion of respondents provided answers with a high degree of variability consistent with responses from bad actors. We also found that a wide-ranging selection of conditions in the survey screener is more consistent with choice patterns expected from bad actors looking to qualify for the study. The relationship between the number of incorrect answers to comprehension questions and problematic choice patterns peaked around 5 out of 10 questions.
conclusionsOur results highlight the need for a robust discussion around the appropriate way to handle bad actors in online preference surveys. While exclusion of survey respondents must be avoided under most circumstances, the impact of "bots" on preference estimates can be significant.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.