Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40451296›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2025

It's raining bots: how easier access to internet surveys has created the perfect storm.

Isabelle Caven, Zhenxiao Yang, Karen Okrainec

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Isabelle CavenUniversity Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0009-0004-1834-284X
Zhenxiao YangUniversity Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Karen OkrainecUniversity Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Karen.Okrainec@uhn.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Online surveys are an increasingly common way to collect data from the public, with social media and financial incentives (e.g. gift cards) commonly used to increase participation rates. Anonymity, ease of response, and the potential to reach diverse demographics have also contributed to the popularity of online surveys. Health services research benefits from the increased accessibility that online survey-based data collection provides; however, fraudulent responses are of concern. The following article describes our team's experience with a national survey of Canadian healthcare providers being overrun with fraudulent responses and approach to ensure the validity of our survey data. We provide recommendations for research teams on how best to design their surveys, work with their institutions to implement safeguards within survey platforms, and screen completed responses. We also describe fraudulent open-text responses that we believe to have been produced with the help of artificial intelligence and are sounding the alarm for other researchers to be aware of this potential threat to data integrity. Informed by the learnings shared, researchers and research institutions can be better equipped to prevent and screen fraudulent responses to continue successfully engage the public in online research.

Indexed as

InternetCanadaHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesArtificial IntelligenceData AccuracyHealth services researchSurveys

Identifiers

PMID40451296
PMCPMC12142081

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.