ArticleFrontiers in research metrics and analytics2024
AI-powered fraud and the erosion of online survey integrity: an analysis of 31 fraud detection strategies.
Article in Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Participants using GenAI in online studies: an overview and recommendations for researchers and reviewers.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- From Assistance to Autonomy: Acceptability of Progressive Artificial Intelligence Integration in Facial Reconstructive Surgery-Protocol for Within-Subjects Vignette Experiment Among Romanian Adults.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Enhancing Data Integrity in Online Health Surveys Through Multilayered Security Measures: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Practical Fraud Detection and Prevention in Incentivized Online Surveys: Secondary Analysis of the ADOPT Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Safeguarding Online Research in Eating Disorders Against Fraud: Increasing Risks and Practical Recommendations.The International journal of eating disorders · 2026Article
- Identifying and Analyzing Bot-Generated Responses in Online Health Care Surveys: Methodological Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- A culturally tailored virtual intervention for Alzheimer's family caregivers: Addressing practical challenges and future directions.Archives of gerontology and geriatrics plus · 2026Article
- Addressing Survey Fraud in Online Health Research: A Case Study of Latine Sexual Minority Men.Research in nursing & health · 2025Article
- I have been scammed in my qualitative research.Research integrity and peer review · 2025Article
- Development and Initial Validation of a Measure of Parental Racial/Ethnic Discrimination in Pediatric Healthcare.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2025Article
- It's raining bots: how easier access to internet surveys has created the perfect storm.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- A national study of substance use: Demonstrated use of recommendations for best practice online data collection.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- Digital Deception: Survey Bots and the Ethics of Data Integrity.Ethics & human researchArticle
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The proliferation of AI-powered bots and sophisticated fraudsters poses a significant threat to the integrity of scientific studies reliant on online surveys across diverse disciplines, including health, social, environmental and political sciences. We found a substantial decline in usable responses from online surveys from 75 to 10% in recent years due to survey fraud. Monetary incentives attract sophisticated fraudsters capable of mimicking genuine open-ended responses and verifying information submitted months prior, showcasing the advanced capabilities of online survey fraud today. This study evaluates the efficacy of 31 fraud indicators and six ensembles using two agriculture surveys in California. To evaluate the performance of each indicator, we use predictive power and recall. Predictive power is a novel variation of precision introduced in this study, and both are simple metrics that allow for non-academic survey practitioners to replicate our methods. The best indicators included a novel email address score, MinFraud Risk Score, consecutive submissions, opting-out of incentives, improbable location.
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.