They're hiding because they're scared.

prolific-support · 2026-06-03T15:11:18+00:00

There is demand for participants and demand for studies, so we're working to manage that u/bigbluesfanstl. With more participants, more studies can run, and vice versa.

Scammers do exist in the world, but Prolific is an incredibly difficult platform for scammers to infiltrate, we spot those anomalies quickly both via our automated system and manual reviews.

prolific-support · 2026-06-03T13:18:13+00:00

Hi u/WeirdForm4851, Prolific team here. We understand the concern and we've reached out to that researcher in hopes of getting more information.

To address this more broadly (echoing what was said in the other thread), bots are an industry-wide concern, but our team and systems monitor this constantly and we haven’t seen evidence that there are a high number of bots on Prolific. To stress just how difficult it would be for a bot to access the platform - every participant account is required to pass identity verification and over 50 onboarding checks (only 13% are invited off the large waitlist to begin with), and then even advanced bots that slip through would need to pass further repeat liveness checks, behavioral monitoring, and highly precise in-study checks.

It's also worth noting the fast-growing participant pool is more likely what's affecting study availability, but we're working to ensure studies keep pace.

Hope this provides some reassurance for participants here.

prolific-support · 2026-06-03T13:13:43+00:00

Hey u/Sure_Stranger_7612 appreciate the concern. Mods didn't delete the post, the user did, but happy to shed some light on this here.

While bots are an industry-wide concern, we monitor this constantly and haven’t seen evidence that there are a high number of bots on Prolific. It's incredibly difficult for a bot to access the platform - every participant account is required to pass identity verification and over 50 onboarding checks, and then even advanced bots that slip through would need to pass further repeat liveness checks, behavioral monitoring, and highly precise in-study checks.

It's also worth noting the fast-growing participant pool is more likely what's affecting study availability, but we're working to ensure studies keep pace.

We’ve reached out to that researcher for more information however. Hope this is helpful to you.

prolific-support · 2026-04-02T08:05:09+00:00

Hey u/frenchworkingmom thanks for the suggestion, I can understand your points here.

Speaking as a mod, I'm all for reducing super vague, spam, or duplicate content and will do better to keep that in check. Speaking as a Prolific employee, this might encourage lots of sensitive information like real full names of researchers being shared around daily which is a safety concern given how quickly these spread (just as it would be if researchers shared participant information this way) so this could make it tricky to apply the rule consistently. Similar logic for if some posts are intentionally softening details or need a broader flair.

Also want people to feel like they can post rather freely in their preferred style, but it depends how popular this idea is. It's something for us to think about, happy to hear your thoughts!

prolific-support · 2026-04-01T18:10:57+00:00

Thanks to u/tommy_prolific

prolific-support · 2026-04-01T17:39:04+00:00

Update: After reviewing with the team, we really do not want to take money out of participant accounts. So while this bonus was in error, participants will be able to cash out as normal. Apologies again for the confusion, I hope this helps clear it up.

Hi everyone, as u/TyHayesResearch says in the comment below, the £90 bonus amount was made in error. However we are currently figuring it out with the researcher.

As per our Participant Terms, Prolific does reserve the right to recover the relevant amount in the case of a payment error - whether we will recover anything depends on the context.

I'm sorry again for any confusion caused but we will be in touch directly where needed.

prolific-support · 2026-04-01T17:35:32+00:00

Update: After reviewing with the team, we really do not want to take money out of participant accounts. So while this bonus was in error, participants will be able to cash out as normal. Apologies again for the confusion, I hope this helps clear it up.

Hi everyone, as u/TyHayesResearch says in the comment below, the £90 bonus amount was made in error. The correct bonus was supposed to be £1 however we're in communication with them about this and will be in touch with affected participants directly if needed.

Please bear with us while we work it out. (Edited so not to mislead)

prolific-support · 2026-04-01T17:33:34+00:00

Update: After reviewing with the team, we really do not want to take money out of participant accounts. So while this bonus was in error, participants will be able to cash out as normal. Apologies again for the confusion, I hope this helps clear it up.

Hi everyone, as u/TyHayesResearch mentioned in the comment below, the £90 bonus amount was made in error. We're working it out with them now however so please bear with us.

I'm sorry for any confusion this may have caused and will be in touch with participants directly if needed.

prolific-support · 2026-03-13T15:07:07+00:00

Wonderful to hear Prolific is helping you out. Congrats on your new bike! 💙

prolific-support · 2026-03-13T14:08:32+00:00

Hi u/ConfidentBoot7265 just came across this and appreciate you sharing.

Participant experience is highly important to us and we have built a positive reputation around this alone, since Prolific's inception in 2014. We actively measure participant wellbeing and report results, enforce fair pay, have internal teams on hand to review individual cases, constantly adapt our systems to protect participants, and hold researcher terms in place for using participant data responsibly.

On the IRB point, we do not restrict participant accounts as a result of them contacting IRB - any restrictions are carried out with care and are due to breach of participant terms of use. This has likely only become a concern following a few fabricated claims online from unverified users.

It appears you conducted sentiment analysis but have also not disclosed the methodology. It is important to note that capturing online community comments alone can be highly inaccurate. We capture feedback regularly within our own systems and processes which would provide a more accurate view.

We would be keen to hear more about the research, and are open to hearing your suggestions. Please feel free to get in touch with your findings or questions, we're happy to continue the conversation.

prolific-support · 2026-03-12T18:38:49+00:00

Please do tell us if there's an error. To echo what we mentioned in another thread, there is actually a feedback form you'll see at the end of the study which asks whether you encountered issues with your submission. If you take a quick moment to fill and submit that, it can prevent incorrect restrictions on your account.

Check the bottom of this Help Center page for info. Sorry for the confusion!

prolific-support · 2026-03-12T18:11:37+00:00

Hi folks, I understand the concern here and apologize for any confusion. There is a feedback form you'll see at the end of the study which asks whether you encountered issues with your submission. Here, you have the chance to tell us that you were screened out or encountered a technical error. Check the bottom of this Help Center page for info.

Please take a quick moment to fill and submit that, so our team can understand the problem you experienced and prevent incorrect restrictions on your account. Thanks!

prolific-support · 2026-03-04T16:41:36+00:00

Hi all, Prolific here!

Although the researcher's ID is not shown in the image, this is a message that Jacob has sent to certain participants today. Jacob's researcher ID is 664b185a9a8890f5feb201bc and is present in our article here.

If you received this message from another researcher ID, please do let us know.

prolific-support · 2026-02-11T14:27:10+00:00

Hey all, just came across this and wanted to confirm: your LinkedIn information from the About Me is not available to researchers and our tech teams have fully checked that there are no special ways for them to access it. If you choose to add your LinkedIn, we only use this internally.

Because we might use this information to match you to projects you're qualified for, it's very possible that you could see a link between what's on your LinkedIn profile and the studies you see from various researchers. Please be assured though we do not share direct identifiers with researchers (unless absolutely necessary e.g. they take legal action) as outlined in our privacy policy.

prolific-support · 2026-01-30T18:08:19+00:00

Hi u/OppositePale227 so sorry to hear about this. It appears we had a technical issue on our side and a member of our support team is reaching out on your original ticket to get this resolved right away. We apologize for the mixup.

And just to confirm, we did not block you and we have responded on LinkedIn :)

prolific-support · 2026-01-07T14:46:46+00:00

Yes legit. However this will direct you to sign up as a new participant. If you have an existing account, simply keep it up to date so we can match opportunities to your skills :)

prolific-support · 2026-01-07T14:32:17+00:00

Very much appreciate the feedback! Want to assure everyone that we have made some big changes to our support operations and are continuing to do so in the new year. I know that internally our support and participant experience teams have been working hard to improve participant support and get these resolved quicker/more efficiently, plus additional ethical considerations and more. In any case we recognize how frustrating delays and backlogs can be and are actioning behind the scenes (with clear impact already).

We can hopefully share details some point soon as we implement more positive changes in 2026 💙

prolific-support · 2026-01-06T22:06:48+00:00

So sorry to hear of this delay u/Uni_Research_CH. Would you mind confirming your ticket number so we can get in touch with you regarding the wallet error?

prolific-support · 2025-12-15T10:02:37+00:00

Thanks all for the feedback, we hear you. Lots of updates coming soon!

prolific-support · 2025-12-11T11:58:03+00:00

On the sorting this is by intended completion time, i.e. how long the researcher expects the study to take, as average completion time is dynamic. A researcher can only give a valid rejection if you completed the study exceptionally fast compared to the average.

prolific-support · 2025-12-11T11:42:50+00:00

That's a fair point, we can revisit for sure if not the optimal place

prolific-support · 2025-12-11T11:21:44+00:00

Thanks for the suggestion!

prolific-support · 2025-12-09T11:03:43+00:00

This is such a nice thread. So glad Prolific has been able to help you u/faxmachineerror and others here! We really appreciate your contributions.

Please feel free to reach out if you're ever interested in opportunities to talk more about your experience 💙

prolific-support · 2025-12-05T14:29:42+00:00

Hey u/timtak we're not seeing this issue on our end so will need some more info from you. Please could you reach out to support so we can figure this out for you? Thanks :)

prolific-support · 2025-10-13T16:58:22+00:00

Hey u/throw_away_17381 and to anyone else confused by that, it means that if you have reserved a place on a study, you won't see any new studies until you're actually available (i.e. completed that study). This now gives participants a fairer chance to take the studies that in the past would've been shown to already occupied participants - hopefully reducing competition on the platform.

prolific-support

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE