Review of Protection Against Bots and Fraudulent Survey Submissions in Nursing Researchs.

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Nursing Research Pub Date : 2026-09-01 Epub Date: 2026-03-27 DOI:10.1097/NNR.0000000000000909
John R Blakeman, Sandra Nielsen, Ann L Eckhardt, Caitlin M McCarthy, MyoungJin Kim
{"title":"Review of Protection Against Bots and Fraudulent Survey Submissions in Nursing Researchs.","authors":"John R Blakeman, Sandra Nielsen, Ann L Eckhardt, Caitlin M McCarthy, MyoungJin Kim","doi":"10.1097/NNR.0000000000000909","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Online survey-based research is common in nursing, but potentially fraudulent responses (e.g., bots or bad actors) threaten the validity of the data obtained from these studies.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The purpose of this methods paper was to quantify and describe the extent to which nursing investigators have protected against fraudulent submissions in online, survey-based research studies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A random sample of articles published in nursing journals and reporting the results of online, survey-based research was obtained from PubMed in June 2024. Each article was audited using a standardized audit matrix.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The included articles ( n = 132) were published in 51 unique journals and involved 56,159 participants. Studies were primarily cross-sectional and conducted worldwide, with most originating in the United States, multiple nations, or China. Investigators mentioned screening for response validity in only 21 articles; fewer explicitly described the screening processes used. Screening strategies included reviewing open-ended responses, checking for response-set biases, reviewing completion times, using computer-assisted tools, and examining responses for implausible values. In all cases where a potentially fraudulent response was identified, investigators excluded the response from analysis. There was no significant difference in the frequency of fraud screening across journal impact factor tertiles.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Fraudulent responses are an ever-present problem in survey research. The articles examined did not routinely report strategies for detecting potentially fraudulent responses or protecting data quality. Published online, survey-based studies that include methods for detecting fraudulent responses enhance reader confidence. Investigators are encouraged to develop an a priori data analysis plan that includes multiple means to identify and eliminate, or otherwise, process fraudulent responses. We suggest that investigators transparently detail the use of a standard checklist for online survey research, in addition to the Fraud detection strategies, Recruitment, Incentive, Excluded responses, Data collection (FRIED) checklist we propose in this article.</p>","PeriodicalId":49723,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Research","volume":" ","pages":"388-394"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0000000000000909","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Online survey-based research is common in nursing, but potentially fraudulent responses (e.g., bots or bad actors) threaten the validity of the data obtained from these studies.

Objectives: The purpose of this methods paper was to quantify and describe the extent to which nursing investigators have protected against fraudulent submissions in online, survey-based research studies.

Methods: A random sample of articles published in nursing journals and reporting the results of online, survey-based research was obtained from PubMed in June 2024. Each article was audited using a standardized audit matrix.

Results: The included articles ( n = 132) were published in 51 unique journals and involved 56,159 participants. Studies were primarily cross-sectional and conducted worldwide, with most originating in the United States, multiple nations, or China. Investigators mentioned screening for response validity in only 21 articles; fewer explicitly described the screening processes used. Screening strategies included reviewing open-ended responses, checking for response-set biases, reviewing completion times, using computer-assisted tools, and examining responses for implausible values. In all cases where a potentially fraudulent response was identified, investigators excluded the response from analysis. There was no significant difference in the frequency of fraud screening across journal impact factor tertiles.

Discussion: Fraudulent responses are an ever-present problem in survey research. The articles examined did not routinely report strategies for detecting potentially fraudulent responses or protecting data quality. Published online, survey-based studies that include methods for detecting fraudulent responses enhance reader confidence. Investigators are encouraged to develop an a priori data analysis plan that includes multiple means to identify and eliminate, or otherwise, process fraudulent responses. We suggest that investigators transparently detail the use of a standard checklist for online survey research, in addition to the Fraud detection strategies, Recruitment, Incentive, Excluded responses, Data collection (FRIED) checklist we propose in this article.

护理研究中防止机器人和虚假调查提交的综述。
背景:基于在线调查的研究在护理领域很常见,但潜在的欺诈反应(例如,机器人或不良行为者)威胁着从这些研究中获得的数据的有效性。目的:本方法论文的目的是量化和描述护理研究者在基于调查的在线研究中防止欺诈性提交的程度。方法:随机抽取2024年6月在PubMed上发表的护理期刊和在线调查研究结果的文章。每篇文章都使用标准化审计矩阵进行审计。结果:纳入的文章(n = 132)发表在51种不同的期刊上,涉及56159名受试者。研究主要是横断面的,在世界范围内进行,大多数来自美国,多个国家或中国。研究者只在21篇文章中提到了反应效度筛选;很少有人明确描述所使用的筛选过程。筛选策略包括审查开放式回答,检查回答集偏差,审查完成时间,使用计算机辅助工具,以及检查不合理值的回答。在所有发现潜在欺诈回复的情况下,调查人员将该回复排除在分析之外。在期刊影响因子分类中,欺诈筛查的频率没有显著差异。讨论:虚假回答是调查研究中一直存在的问题。所审查的文章没有定期报告检测潜在欺诈性响应或保护数据质量的策略。在线发布的基于调查的研究,包括检测欺诈回复的方法,增强了读者的信心。鼓励调查人员制定一个先验的数据分析计划,其中包括多种方法来识别和消除,或以其他方式处理欺诈反应。除了本文提出的欺诈检测策略、招聘、激励、排除回应、数据收集(FRIED)清单外,我们建议调查人员透明地详细说明在线调查研究的标准清单的使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Nursing Research
Nursing Research 医学-护理
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.00%
发文量
102
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nursing Research is a peer-reviewed journal celebrating over 60 years as the most sought-after nursing resource; it offers more depth, more detail, and more of what today''s nurses demand. Nursing Research covers key issues, including health promotion, human responses to illness, acute care nursing research, symptom management, cost-effectiveness, vulnerable populations, health services, and community-based nursing studies. Each issue highlights the latest research techniques, quantitative and qualitative studies, and new state-of-the-art methodological strategies, including information not yet found in textbooks. Expert commentaries and briefs are also included. In addition to 6 issues per year, Nursing Research from time to time publishes supplemental content not found anywhere else.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书