ArticleThe International journal of eating disorders2026
Safeguarding Online Research in Eating Disorders Against Fraud: Increasing Risks and Practical Recommendations.
Article in The International journal of eating disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Safeguarding Online Research in Eating Disorders Against Fraud: Increasing Risks and Practical Recommendations.The International journal of eating disorders · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveRecent growth of online research has been accompanied by an increase in reports of fraudulent participants, which can significantly comprise research validity. Drawing from our experience using Qualtrics with open recruitment, existing literature, and emerging studies in eating disorders (ED), we outline the risk and provide simple, practical recommendations for preventing, detecting, and managing fraudulent participants in online ED research.
methodOver the conduct of a three-round Delphi consensus study with 138 English-speaking individuals aged 18 and older, we were inundated with fraudulent sign-ups between July and August 2024, despite implementing multiple fraud prevention strategies. In response, we introduced additional fraud mitigation strategies and established a three-step procedure for identifying and managing fraudulent participants.
resultsThe additional fraud mitigation measures, including a second reCAPTCHA, a duplicate question for consistency checks, and modified attention check questions, potentially aided in preventing further fraudulent sign-ups. Our procedure involving manual comprehensive review of all incoming survey data and checks against a fraudulent participants' profile enabled us to identify and withdraw suspected or likely fraudulent participants. DISCUSSION: With increasing fraudulent participation rates and rapidly advancing technological advancements such as artificial intelligence, all online studies are at risk and researchers need to be proactive in their use of antifraud practices to safeguard online research. Our practical recommendations can assist future researchers in managing fraudulent participants.
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.