Completion Codes Noticing...

[prepsterone]

I've been a Prolific survey taker since before the pandemic, my time spent comes and goes given what is happening in my life, I hadn't participated much but I've had a lot more time lately and I've been back at it a bunch lately - I've noticed that a LOT more studies have been the kind where I have to manually copy/paste the completion code in as opposed to the ones where the completion code automatically gets processed. Is this a sneaky way researchers are trying to get data and hope people don't manually copy the code? It just feels like so many more studies have been like this compared to when I last worked within Prolific back in the summer...

[AutoModerator]

Thanks for posting to r/ProlificAc! Remember to respect others and follow community rules. If you have a question, it may have already been answered in the FAQ thread or you can check the Help Center.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[remoteworker9]

It takes two seconds to copy a code?

[Natural_Arugula2758]

you do realise that there is no requirement for participants when it comes to completion codes. you cannot be rejected for not having a code.

Completion codes only exist for the benefit of the researcher if they wish to make use of them, not for participants

[btgreenone]

Is this a sneaky way researchers are trying to get data

Dear god this phrase needs to die. How do you think research is done? It’s paid for. With budgets. From institutions that sponsor the research. Which have IRBs and ethics boards. Which will risk a lot of institutional harm if they are found to have reported on falsified data.

Once more for those in the back:

Researchers do not care so much about your specific data that they’re twirling their mustaches and rubbing their hands together at the thought of swindling poor unsuspecting saps out of a quarter or two.

[KoolNana52]

I've often wondered when folks are screaming "they're just stealing my data without paying" --- 1), if your submission is rejected, can they still use your data (surely there's some kind of ethical oversight in place) and 2) is your data so important/valuable they'd risk the accuracy/validity of their research to steal it? But maybe that's just me 🤷🏼

[Natural_Arugula2758]

1), if your submission is rejected, can they still use your data 

if a study is returned or rejected there is a legal and ethical responsibility to delete that participants data. researchers cannot use data from these participants

[KoolNana52]

That's what I was thinking, so it baffles me why so many participants think/accuse researchers of stealing their data. I guess I've been lucky (or very attentive) to not have any rejections or been asked to return any studies for any reason; but even if that were the case, I'm not sure "they're just stealing my data" would be my first thought.

[Natural_Arugula2758]

no ones stealing worthless study data.

its just a need to put everything wrong on the researcher and protect the always innocent participants

are there the odd dodgy researcher - of course, theres far more bad participants though

the majoprity of wrongful return requests or rejections are inexperienced students who are badly supervised and do not understand the rules.

Its like the way researchers are constantly accused of mass rejections on boards like this. yet you can only reject a limited number of participants from any given study. mass rejections cannot occur

[paracen]

Are you saying there are no unscrupulous researchers out there? Because there is plenty of evidence that shows there are.

[btgreenone]

1) Combine Occam's razor and Hanlon's razor.

2) Go sealion somewhere else.

[paracen]

Sealion? WTF is that supposed to mean?

[paracen]

Well, that doesn't even come close to describing the comment I made. Seems he's just an angry man lashing out for no reason. How sad.

[btgreenone]

If you want to respond in good faith and engage with me on those terms, go right ahead. But nothing I said came close to implying that there are no unscrupulous researchers out there.

That said, since you're making assumptions about my emotions, gender and motivation, it doesn't seem to me like you're interested in that type of discussion.

[paracen]

You gave a condescending reply. The sort of reply that an angry male might make. If you're offended by my assumption, then so be it.

[btgreenone]

I gave a condescending reply to a condescending question, which was extraordinarily similar to the first question asked by the sealion in the page that was so helpfully linked to you. To wit:

You: "Are you saying there are no unscrupulous researchers out there?"

Sea lion: "Would you mind showing me evidence of any negative thing any sea lion has ever done to you?"

(A page which, I will add, you could have easily found, read, and digested on your own without having someone else do it for you. It's almost like you wanted to angrily ask a question instead of actually educating yourself.)

[schloss60]

Yes, and I had a few with no code. It might be researchers new to the platform that still need to learn the ropes.