Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40886016›Full record

ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2025

I have been scammed in my qualitative research.

Carole Bandiera, Kate Lowrie, Donna Thomas, Sabuj Kanti Mistry, Elizabeth Harris, Mark F Harris, Parisa Aslani

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Community Health Workers' and Pharmacists' Perspectives of a CHW-Pharmacist Collaboration Model to Support Medication Adherence.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  3. Interprofessional Collaboration Between Community Health Workers and Pharmacists.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

Carole BandieraSydney Pharmacy School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. carole.bandiera@sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9996-3100
Kate LowrieResearch Integrity and Ethics Administration, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Donna ThomasSydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Sabuj Kanti MistrySchool of Population Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Elizabeth HarrisInternational Centre for Future Health Systems, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Mark F HarrisInternational Centre for Future Health Systems, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Parisa AslaniSydney Pharmacy School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. parisa.aslani@sydney.edu.au.

Funding

Swiss National Science Foundation Postdoc.Mobility Grant P500PM_217609
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We have been scammed in our online qualitative study by some fraudulent participants who falsely claimed to be pharmacists or community health workers. These participants were interviewed before we discovered that they were not who they claimed to be.In this commentary, we describe key indicators of potential imposters, such as the number of emails received in a short period of time, emails with similar content and address structure, participants having a keen interest in the reimbursement, camera switched off during the interview, and inconsistency in the participants' responses.We provide recommendations on how to prevent future fraud, such as promoting the study to a closed network or groups on social media, encouraging participants to provide sources that verify their identity, ensuring that the camera is switched on during the entire interview, discouraging the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to answer questions or generate content, unless when AI-based language tools are used to facilitate translation, understanding or communication, providing reimbursements with local vouchers rather than international ones, and where the participants are healthcare professionals, checking their registration number prior to the interview.It is important for Human Research Ethics Committee members to consider genuine measures to assess participant authenticity and reduce the risk of fraudulent participation. Additionally, universities and research institutions should develop guidance to educate researchers in this area. Published protocols, guidelines and checklists for online qualitative studies, and participant information statements and consent forms should be adapted to prevent and address potential fraud. For example, the COREQ checklist should be updated so that researchers report the actions undertaken to prevent and detect fraud and their experiences and actions if there was fraud.Fraud in online research impacts the integrity and quality of online research. Urgent actions are needed to raise awareness of this issue within the research community and prevent further occurrences of scams.

Indexed as

FraudFraudulent participantsImposter participantsOnline interviewsOnline qualitative researchOnline recruitmentOnline researchResearch ethicsResearch integrityScam

Identifiers

PMID40886016
PMCPMC12398116

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.