ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2026
Participants using GenAI in online studies: an overview and recommendations for researchers and reviewers.
Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundParticipants' use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) to create responses in online studies can threaten data authenticity and research validity. This issue is particularly pressing in settings where participation is paid for. In response, researchers have begun to develop different approaches to prevent and detect GenAI use by participants.
objectiveThis comment illustrates the unintended consequences of researchers' measures to prevent and detect participants' GenAI use and aims to help researchers and reviewers better identify the potential consequences of these measures.
resultsDrawing on current literature, we identify seven different levels of participants' GenAI use, differentiated by increasing degrees of technological sophistication and automation. These levels range on a continuum from the manual operation of GenAI by participants to the employment of automated GenAI agents. We discuss prevention and detection measures corresponding to these levels and how researchers' measures can cause reactions from participants. Specifically, we suggest that extensive measures can trigger an adverse selection mechanism by driving out honest participants and inviting greater sophistication in GenAI use.
conclusionsInstead of engaging in a technological cat-and-mouse game with participants through deterrence, we argue that we should focus on the incentive structure to resolve the issue. We propose a combination of better payment and an opt-in verified participation mode, i.e., video proof, to reduce participants' GenAI use in online studies and increase data quality. Building on this perspective, we provide practical recommendations for researchers and reviewers to improve research quality, maintain fairness, and save resources.
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.