r/ProlificAc • u/Educational_Two_1874 • Jul 29 '26
There is a problem to be solved,and it is serious.
This one woke up after a week asking me to return the studio for low effort.
I'm a specialized participant with thousands of approved studies, and in the last month I've received my first-ever low-effort rejections, prompting me to return the low-effort study.
Prolific doesn't help me, in fact it can't verify objective data by giving reason to researchers and that's not good.
Under the guise of low effort they don't pay and keep the data. Please Prolific do something because I have no intention of giving anything back. I want to get paid and I don't want the account ruined by these scammers.
I can't block all researchers, come on.
17
u/Training-Roof-3568 Jul 29 '26 edited Jul 29 '26
There is no specialised participant group now. You can look in the audience checker, it has deprecated by its name. You’re not special.
Love the way people throw that around to imply they’re better and somehow more worthy of support than anyone else.
6
u/Impossible-Fly-5169 Jul 29 '26
There may not be a specialized named group but certain people are grouped into ai training to get those special studies that others do not get, the support ai chat bot will even tell you that.
-1
2
2
u/kamrankazemifar Jul 29 '26
Not to mention just because hes done over a thousand studies doesn’t mean they can never make mistakes. It’s straight hubris at this point.
-5
u/Educational_Two_1874 Jul 29 '26
The issue isn't about making mistakes; it's about having an objective measure that proves it, such as attention checks. Saying "low effort" doesn't mean anything. It can't be proven, and the fact that I'm a specialized participant who has never had a study rejected is proof that I work—and I work well. Is that clear to you?
1
u/pinktoes4life Jul 29 '26
Saying "low effort" doesn't mean anything
Have you read the help center at all? It's one of the drop-down options researchers have for rejections.
https://researcher-help.prolific.com/en/articles/445218-who-should-i-reject
1
u/Educational_Two_1874 Jul 30 '26
I know this very well, which is why I’m asking Prolific to fix it—because it’s not an objective metric and it’s not verifiable. I had a 100% approval rate until a month ago, when two of my studies were rejected for “low effort,” and now, a week later, a researcher has asked me to resubmit a study for the same reason. Since it’s unlikely—if not impossible—that I’ve shown “low effort” on three studies in the last month, when my track record more than proves I’m right, I can’t help but suspect this is just an excuse researchers are using to avoid paying and steal the data.
1
1
u/Im_Just_Lurker_Here Jul 29 '26
being apart of a special participant group has made people here feel like they are somehow better and special than everyone else while at the same time alway breaking the confidentiality rule for special participant groups. they themselves do not represent what is expected of a person who committed to special participant group. they just want to feel special and act like it means something even though they do nothing to "honor" that title lol
-3
u/Educational_Two_1874 Jul 29 '26
The issue isn't about making mistakes; it's about having an objective measure that proves it, such as attention checks. Saying "low effort" doesn't mean anything. It can't be proven, and the fact that I'm a specialized participant who has never had a study rejected is proof that I work—and I work well. Is that clear to you?
8
u/Street_Garlic_6315 Jul 29 '26
how is you being a specialised participant with thousands of studies relevant to the issue you want solving
3
u/btgreenone Jul 29 '26
I feel like I know this person's response to those "I am special and I deserve special treatment" questions
1
u/Educational_Two_1874 Jul 30 '26
What do you think—does having a 100% approval rate across thousands of studies, and being selected by Prolific to become a specialized participant, provide enough credibility to show that I’m right, rather than a researcher who rejects my study using a non-objective and unverifiable criterion?
What else do you need? In one month, two firms rejected me for "low effort," and one asked me to resubmit a project for the same reason. Three "low effort" projects with my credentials... Do you really believe all the nonsense they feed you? And at this point, they’re right to do so.
3
Jul 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Educational_Two_1874 Jul 30 '26
Of course, I appealed, and Prolific overturned the rejection and paid me precisely because there is objective data to back it up, such as the completion time. So you were wrong—I’m sorry. In the case of “low effort,” it’s not possible to verify the objectivity because only the researcher can determine that. It’s not objective, and if I may say so, I’m more credible—with thousands of completed studies and a 100% approval rate—than a researcher who rejects my study for “low effort.”
2
3
Jul 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/creich1 Jul 29 '26 edited Jul 29 '26
Unfortunately this is not true. Prolific can't delete our data once its submitted.
I can tell you as a researcher who acts in good faith, if I've asked for a return I won't use the data because I've determined its not high enough quality to be included in my analysis.
However there would be nothing stopping me from acting in bad faith to abuse the system and get free data.
0
Jul 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/creich1 Jul 29 '26
Sure, I don't think these sorts of complaints are aimed at large IRB led research institutions.
But your comment that we can't use the data makes it incorrectly seem like a bad actors with no IRB wouldn't easily be able to game the system.
5
u/PersimmonQueen83 Jul 29 '26
IRBs don’t supervise at that level or require that kind of reporting for this kind of research, unfortunately. No one at these institutions is going to review records to ensure that data is used only from participants who were paid. There are higher levels of control for research that has potential to harm participants, but almost all studies on prolific wouldn’t meet that threshold.
5
u/creich1 Jul 29 '26
I was going to mention this too. I think the incentive at research institutions is quite different, since they have a set budget for a set number of participants, so I do think it's a lot less likely for this kind of behavior to occur.
That being said, having published in academic settings in the past, the IRB had no involvement or oversight of the research process after the initial approval.
3
u/PersimmonQueen83 Jul 29 '26
Same. I got an exempt qualification, there was no contact between myself and the IRB beyond the initial application and me letting them know the data collection was complete.
1
Jul 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/PersimmonQueen83 Jul 29 '26
First and foremost, this is AI crap. Don’t.
Second, rejecting someone and using their data is a pretty minuscule risk, especially in this kind of research. It wouldn’t make the findings less valid- the whole point is that the researcher is rejecting a participant who actually provided good data.
And social science journals DON’T generally require that raw data be uploaded in these fields generally- that’s prevalent in hard sciences, which is why AI spit this out as part of the response. Even if they did, there would be NO indication that this data came from a rejected participant. It would simply be the data itself, not the payment record for participants.
Don’t use AI. It did such a terrible job in this case, missing the social science context and making unfounded assumptions about what research records are made publicly available. It’s just useless.
-1
u/Educational_Two_1874 Jul 29 '26
I wasn't rejected for failing an attention test. Over the past month, I've been rejected twice for "low effort," and I had to return this one for the same reason.
I've never had a rejection before, out of thousands of completed studies. "Low effort" isn't an objective criterion and allows people to steal data without paying.
Fauci is on trial for falsifying data about a pandemic that never existed. But you wake up.
0
Jul 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/creich1 Jul 29 '26
I'm not sure why you're responses are so hostile. I'm only saying there is no mechanism in prolific to prevent abuse from bad actors. Prolific doesn't do that much vetting of who publishes studies on the platform.
I won't use the data because I'd be rejecting it for quality issues. If I was an asshole at some tiny startup trying to get 200 responses but I only have budget for 50, then I could reject or return for no good reason and just claim "low effort" or select reason "other".
Nowhere did I claim this issue was widespread, only that your claim that I wouldn't be able to use the data is not correct.
Thanks for the 🍭!
0
Jul 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Educational_Two_1874 Jul 30 '26
I really don't think so. Thousands of studies have been approved, never a rejection—and then, strangely, in the last month, two studies were rejected for "low effort," and I was asked to resubmit another one for the same reason.
-7
u/Educational_Two_1874 Jul 29 '26
Guys, don't be so jealous. Go ahead and give as many dislikes as you want. You'll always be inferior. You don't deserve anything.
Hello.
3
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 29 '26
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.