Protecting Our Evidence Base

Several years ago, one of my PhD students encountered a troubling situation during data collection for their dissertation. Individuals falsely claimed to meet the study’s eligibility criteria, when in fact they were frauds (Mizerek et al., 2023). For a novice researcher, the process of recruiting participants was already challenging and stressful. The added complication of participant misrepresentation introduced an unexpected and significant obstacle. While this student’s experience heightened my awareness of the issue, I did not fully grasp its scope or the broader implications for research integrity until more recently. Personally, the issue of participant misrepresentation became evident last year while my three colleagues and I were recruiting participants for a multimethod study. We had posted our recruitment materials on national nursing organization member-only sites. Recruitment initially appeared to progress smoothly, until we noticed a concerning pattern during several of the online interviews: Some participants had excuses or refused to turn on their cameras, while others intermittently switched their cameras off and on between interview questions. These behaviors raised concerns — red flags — and ultimately revealed a potentially significant problem with participant authenticity. We temporarily paused recruitment efforts to reevaluate our suspicions and reported the problem to the institutional review board (IRB). Experiencing this situation firsthand underscored how easily research integrity can be compromised, even in a well-designed and executed study. As researchers, we rely heavily on digital tools and remote data collection. Unfortunately, the risk of fraudulent participation is not just theoretical but is happening somewhat frequently and requires a proactive stance and ongoing vigilance. Addressing it is essential to protect the validity and trustworthiness of our findings, ethical standards of the profession, and trust placed in nursing education scholarship. DEFINING THE PROBLEM What exactly is a fraudulent (or fake) participant? In the literature, these individuals have also been referred to as imposter or inauthentic participants. Rochl and Harland (2022) distinguished between fraudulent and imposter, characterizing fraud as wrongful or deceptive behavior intended for personal gain and imposter as pretending to be someone else in order to deceive. My colleagues and I believe that both fraud and impersonation were involved in our experience. Individuals falsely claimed to meet all inclusion criteria identifying them as nurses and, even after being excluded, repeatedly contacted us seeking the compensation. The issue extends beyond qualitative interviews and surveys and affects a wide range of research methodologies. The growing use of online recruitment and data collection often aimed at reaching a diverse national or global sample has generated a noticeable increase in reports of fraudulent research participation (Schneider et al., 2024). Unfortunately, recruiting, interviewing, and analyzing data from these participants is an inefficient use of resources and wastes valuable time, funding, and researcher effort. It also delays progress in addressing real pedagogical challenges. SCREENING AND RECRUITMENT Because researchers often rely on participants’ self-reported data, it is essential to use multiple strategies to detect potential inconsistencies or fraudulent behavior during recruitment, screening, and data collection. These strategies may include using screening questions that identify illogical or inconsistent responses, verifying participant identity, asking context-specific questions, and limiting recruitment from high-risk sources without thorough vetting (Dhariwal et al., 2025). For instance, when working with nurse educator participants, researchers might request an email from their institutional domain or check the institution’s website to confirm their professional affiliation. Monitoring Internet protocol or IP addresses for duplication can also help identify fraudulent activity, especially when compensation is involved. Another potential deterrent could be removal of incentive information from recruitment materials prior to consent (Hoskins et al., 2025). Researchers should consult their IRB to ensure that these verification methods do not compromise participant privacy (Dhariwal et al., 2025; Rochl & Harland, 2022). As the number of fraudulent respondents in online surveys continues to rise, technological advancements are playing a key role in improving the reliability of the recruitment process. Emerging fraud detection software offers tools to identify duplicate or suspicious entries, helping researchers verify participant authenticity. These tools can reduce the manual burden on researchers while enhancing data integrity and trustworthiness. At the consent process phase, another consideration might be multistep consent verification. PRESERVING RESEARCH INTEGRITY Fraudulent participants can distort data, potentially leading to inaccurate findings and conclusions. In nursing education, where research often informs curriculum development, teaching strategies, and policy decisions, this could have far-reaching consequences. The introduction of inaccurate, biased, or fabricated data can contribute to questions about data integrity. External reviewers may question the validity, reliability, and trustworthiness of the study and the data, potentially undermining its credibility. As a result, the study conclusions and broader implications for the science of nursing education may be compromised. Researchers have an ethical obligation to ensure that their studies are conducted with integrity and that participants meet established inclusion criteria. Fraudulent participation undermines this trust and can compromise the ethical standards of the research. One important step is to clearly communicate verification procedures, data handling practices, and the process for reporting suspected fraud within the consent forms. Maintaining ethical oversight and adhering to IRB guidelines are essential for balancing participant privacy with fraud detection. CONCLUSION Fraudulent participation has been discussed in the literature for more than a decade and is a continuing threat to research integrity. By combining careful screening, vigilant monitoring, and consistent reporting, we can protect the validity of our findings and the ethical foundation of our work. As succinctly articulated by Dhariwal and colleagues (2025), “No single strategy can sufficiently mitigate the risk of fraudulent research participation. A combination of strategies may be needed to enhance security throughout the research process” (p. 20). Addressing this issue proactively will help maintain credibility and accountability and provide the best evidence for our teaching practices.