The rise of digital platforms has transformed the way researchers recruit participants. “Platforms” means not only social media channels such as X, Facebook and Instagram, but also specialized participant-recruitment websites.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, online recruitment and data collection became a vital method for researchers to maintain a safe distance and protect both participants and their own health. The shift also enabled participation in research from virtually anywhere. Online methods have proven both efficient and cost-effective, by eliminating travel expenses, reducing logistical overhead and allowing researchers to reach larger participant pools more swiftly.
However, a new problem has emerged: imposter participants. These are individuals who pretend to meet the eligibility criteria for research studies, presumably to gain compensation, jeopardizing the validity of the data — and presenting challenges for researchers. A related problem is “research bots” — AI bots that can automatically complete online surveys.
Our research team, focused on understanding feminism through the voices of women with intellectual disabilities, encountered challenges with impostor participants when recruiting research participants through social media. We’ve learned valuable lessons about how to manage online research more ethically and efficiently.
Challenges in recruiting online
In our research, we quickly realized that imposter participants were infiltrating our recruitment process.
Many colleagues who are collecting and analyzing numerical data (“quantitative scholars”) have shared similar experiences with imposter participants, whether related to people who don’t meet research criteria or research bots.
In quantitative research, data collection is often anonymous or involves minimal direct interaction (such as filling out an online form).
By contrast, qualitative research often includes more personal, in-depth exchanges, like one-on-one interviews, focus groups or extended participant observation. This occurs even in virtual settings, as researchers explore and interpret how individuals or groups assign meanings to social or human issues, and seek to build trust with research participants. This means, for qualitative scholars, the challenges surrounding imposter participants are more nuanced.
(The Gender Spectrum Collection), CC BY-NC-ND
Simply trying to apply the same strategies used in quantitative research, such as strict eligibility screenings or automated verification methods, doesn’t always translate well. These approaches can be perceived as intrusive or even alienating, particularly for marginalized groups like those with intellectual disabilities.
Our challenge wasn’t just identifying fraud; it was balancing the need for thorough vetting with our ethical commitment to respect the autonomy of participants, especially people with disabilities who are often subjected to doubts about their credibility.
The reality of imposter participants
One of our team’s struggles was recognizing signs of fraud.
Some individuals, posing as legitimate participants, sent us nearly identical emails expressing interest in the study. They appeared eager to contribute, but as we dug deeper, discrepancies surfaced.
Questions like identifying their location were met with vague or incorrect responses. In one case, a participant claimed to be from Ontario but struggled to pinpoint a city.
(Shutterstock)
Other red flags included unwillingness to turn on cameras during interviews or a lack of engagement during conversations, which raised suspicions about their intentions.
Other scholars have identified more signs that can raise red flags about suspect participants. Participants may cite recruitment sites the study never used or share identical email platforms and blank subject lines. Some provide nearly identical stories.
Researchers have also noted participants focusing excessively on certain payment methods (for example, requesting PayPal or vouchers) and refusing to share bank or professional email details for verification.
Trust in the process for researchers, participants
When our team faced uncertainty about who was real and who wasn’t, it affected not only our trust in the recruitment process but also the rapport we had worked so hard to build with genuine participants. Our concerns weren’t just about the validity of our data. We were also wary of creating barriers for legitimate participants.
In some instances, our instincts suggested that a participant’s responses were not genuine. We carefully weighed the integrity of our study against potential repercussions, including the risk of wrongly excluding a legitimate participant.
If suspicions persisted after team meetings, we removed the questionable data to protect the study’s validity — a decision not taken lightly. We ultimately felt that prioritizing trustworthy findings and maintaining ethical standards justified these actions.
Strategies for future research
Here are a few strategies that researchers can use to minimize the risks associated with imposter participants:
Clear and specific recruitment processes: We recommend using well-established community partners and networks for recruitment. However, even these trusted sources can be infiltrated. A robust recruitment process could include multiple stages of communication, such as initial screening via a brief phone call, which can help clarify inconsistencies in potential participants’ stories. This proactive approach helps identify fraudulent participants early on.
Compensation caution: Financial incentives can motivate participants, but they can also attract imposters. While compensating participants fairly for their time is essential — especially for marginalized groups — we recommend offering modest incentives, ideally tailored to participant needs. We chose to offer digital gift cards that could only be redeemed within Canada.
(Pexels/Vanessa Garcia)
Revised interview techniques: Once the interview process begins, researchers can mitigate potential issues by designing interviews with probing questions that require deeper responses. We’ve found that questions asking for specific, lived experiences — rather than general statements — are more likely to reveal whether a participant is authentic. Additionally, requesting participants to turn on their cameras, if possible, can help validate their presence and engagement. However, it is not a guarantee that participants meet all eligibility criteria. Some legitimate participants may have valid reasons for not wanting to turn on their cameras, such as privacy concerns or technical limitations.
A call for transparency in research
As online research becomes more widespread, the challenge of managing imposter participants will only grow. However, researchers can address this challenge with careful planning, ethical consideration and a commitment to protecting both data integrity and participant dignity.
By being transparent about these difficulties, we can build a research culture that values honesty, inclusivity and respect for all participants. The key to success is balancing caution with empathy, ensuring that no participant feels doubted, while still safeguarding the trustworthiness of our data.
At the same time, vigilance and researcher collaboration is needed, as we suspect that there may be a well-organized network of illegitimate research participants actively seeking opportunities to participate in studies and collect gift cards or other forms of honoraria. Other researchers, who have encountered unusual patterns of fraudulent participation echo this suspicion.
One key takeaway is the importance of communication within research teams. We hope the broader research community will increasingly share experiences and solutions openly, rather than relying on informal networks or private conversations.
