ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024
From Doubt to Confidence-Overcoming Fraudulent Submissions by Bots and Other Takers of a Web-Based Survey.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Habit-formation strategies enhance long-term outcomes of a self-compassionate touch micropractice: a randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Participants using GenAI in online studies: an overview and recommendations for researchers and reviewers.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Seeing Oneself in the Feed: Racialized Targeting in Food Marketing and Its Impact on Adolescents' Visual Interest and Unhealthy Food Preferences.Journal of experimental social psychology · 2026Article
- Practical Fraud Detection and Prevention in Incentivized Online Surveys: Secondary Analysis of the ADOPT Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Battling the Bots and Defending Against Fraudulent Responses in an International Community-Engaged Web-Based Survey With People Living With Long COVID: Methodological Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- AI-driven personalization of food systems: From precision nutrition to climate-resilient supply chains.NPJ science of food · 2026Review
- Gerontologists combating fraudulent research participants: recommendations from design to dissemination.The Gerontologist · 2025Article
- It's raining bots: how easier access to internet surveys has created the perfect storm.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Advancing translational science through trial integrity: REDCap-based approaches to mitigating fraud and bias.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Cross-sectional comparison of sociodemographic and tobacco use characteristics of U.S. adults who regularly use leading electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) products.Tobacco induced diseases · 2025Article
- A national study of substance use: Demonstrated use of recommendations for best practice online data collection.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In 2019, we launched a web-based longitudinal survey of adults who frequently use e-cigarettes, called the Vaping and Patterns of E-cigarette Use Research (VAPER) Study. The initial attempt to collect survey data failed due to fraudulent survey submissions, likely submitted by survey bots and other survey takers. This paper chronicles the journey from that setback to the successful completion of 5 waves of data collection. The section "Naïve Beginnings" examines the study preparation phase, identifying the events, decisions, and assumptions that contributed to the failure (eg, allowing anonymous survey takers to submit surveys and overreliance on a third-party's proprietary fraud detection tool to identify participants attempting to submit multiple surveys). "A 5-Alarm Fire and Subsequent Investigation" summarizes the warning signs that suggested fraudulent survey submissions had compromised the data integrity after the initial survey launched (eg, an unanticipated acceleration in recruitment and a voicemail alleging fraudulent receipt of multiple gift codes). This section also covers the investigation process, along with conclusions regarding how the methodology was exploited (eg, clearing cookies and using virtual private networks) and the extent of the issue (ie, only 363/1624, 22.4% of the survey completions were likely valid). "Building More Resilient Methodology" details the vulnerabilities and threats that likely compromised the initial survey attempt (eg, anonymity and survey bots); the corresponding mitigation strategies and their benefits and limitations (eg, personal record verification platforms, IP address matching, virtual private network detection services, and CAPTCHA [Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart]); and the array of strategies that were implemented in future survey attempts. "Staying Vigilant" recounts the identification and management of an additional threat that emerged despite the implementation of an array of mitigation strategies, underscoring the need for ongoing vigilance and adaptability. While the precise nature of the threat remains unknown, the evidence suggested multiple fraudulent surveys were submitted by a single or connected entities, who likely did not possess e-cigarettes. To mitigate the chance of reoccurrence, participants were required to submit an authentic photo of their most used e-cigarette. Finally, in "Reflection 4 Years Later," we share insights after completing 5 waves of data collection without additional threats or vulnerabilities uncovered that necessitated the application of further mitigation strategies. Reflections include reasons for confidence in the data's integrity, the scalability and cost-effectiveness of the study protocols, and the potential introduction of sampling bias through recruitment and mitigation strategies. By sharing our journey, we aim to provide valuable insights for researchers facing similar challenges with web-based surveys and those seeking to minimize such challenges a priori. Our experiences highlight the importance of proactive measures, continuous monitoring, and adaptive problem-solving to ensure the integrity of data collected from participants recruited from web-based platforms.
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.