ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
Flagged for Fraud: Lessons From 3 Case Studies on Detecting Inauthentic Participants in Online Research.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost and Data Quality Impact of Fraud Mitigation in Online Research: Framework Application and Evaluation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Precision Medicine in Rural Settings: Clinician Perspectives on Clinician-Ordered Genetic Testing.Research square · 2026Article
- Precision Medicine in Rural Settings: Patient Perspectives on Clinician-Ordered Genetic Testing.Research square · 2026Article
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As digital and remote research methods become more prevalent, the risk of fraudulent participants-individuals who deliberately misrepresent themselves to gain access to studies and associated incentives-has emerged as a significant challenge. These inauthentic participants threaten data validity, obscure treatment effects, and may lead to interventions being developed based on inaccurate representations of target populations. Despite the growing recognition of this issue, researchers have limited guidance on how to detect and respond to fraud when it occurs, particularly when committed by real people rather than automated systems. We present 3 case studies from our own research where participants engaged in deception to gain study incentives. We identify recurring patterns of behavior as "red" (clear signs of inauthenticity) and "yellow" (ambiguous behavior common among fraudulent participants) flags, describe how our team responded, and share lessons learned for future studies. This work aims to support researchers in identifying fraudulent participants more effectively, helping to ensure the validity and credibility of data collected in online research.
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.