Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41439662›Full record

ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2025

Let's Talk aBOT Scam Online Survey Completions in Health Behavior Research: Tutorial With Case Studies, Practical Guidance, and a Checklist for Researchers.

Lauren Arundell, Jo Salmon, Anthony Walsh, Kathleen Dullaghan, Heilok Cheng, Thea Baker, Megan Teychenne, Felipe Schuch, Debora Tornquist, Anna Timperio

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

10 authors.

Lauren ArundellInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8178-4104
Jo SalmonInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4734-6354
Anthony WalshInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4901-429X
Kathleen DullaghanInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1537-0605
Heilok ChengInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7299-0416
Thea BakerInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0009-0003-3263-1026
Megan TeychenneInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7293-8255
Felipe SchuchDepartment of Sports Methods and Techniques, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-5190-4515
Debora TornquistGraduate Program in Movement Sciences and Rehabilitation, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-7363-1669
Anna TimperioInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8773-5012

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOnline data collection can reach large populations efficiently and cost-effectively. However, the increase in bots and scammers (ie, person- or software-based fraudulent completions) completing online surveys raises data integrity issues and wastes scarce research resources.

objectiveThis paper aims to describe case studies and experiences in which bot or scam completions of online surveys occurred within the health behavior field (specifically physical activity and nutrition). Lessons learned and a checklist of strategies to assist researchers before, during, and after data collection to reduce the incidence of and identify bot or scam completions are provided.

methodsFour diverse case studies are presented from studies that used online recruitment and data collection methods for cross-sectional surveys by parents about children's screen time, cross-sectional surveys by adults about transport-related physical activity, qualitative interviews for a proposed trauma-informed physical activity program for female victim-survivors of intimate partner violence, and the Australian component of a large multicountry prospective study targeting university students. The strategies used to identify and prevent bot or scam online survey completions are explored.

resultsHigh levels (7%-80%) of suspected bot or scam completions were identified in a number of these studies. Participant characteristics and outcome variables were significantly different between included and excluded participants (eg, excluded responses had a higher percentage of male parents and children, higher social media use, and lower physical activity guideline adherence). The learnings from these case studies and the wider literature are combined to create a checklist of strategies that researchers can use to prevent and identify bot or scam completions. These include strategies before data collection (when creating study collateral), during survey design and development (including the use of inbuilt platform functions and the design of the survey questions and structure), following data collection (indicators of potential bot or scam completions), and recommendations for reporting of bots or scams.

conclusionsThe checklist, based on the included case studies and wider literature, can be used to help researchers who use online recruitment and data collection methods at each stage, from planning and conducting through to analyzing and reporting their findings. Researchers should include several steps to prevent and identify fraudulent survey responses when creating surveys and completing data cleaning. This checklist should also be considered in grant applications and ethics applications. This will provide greater confidence in the research findings and reduce unnecessary waste of research time and resources.

Indexed as

ChecklistHealth BehaviorAdultAustraliaCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInternetMaleSurveys and Questionnairesbotsdata fabricationdata integrityfalsificationonlinescamsurvey

Identifiers

PMID41439662
PMCPMC12780700

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.