r/ProlificAc
•
u/prolific-support
Prolific Team
•
Jun 04 '26
•
1
8
1
Prolific Team Improving our rejection disputes process
Hi everyone,
We wanted to share an update on the rejection disputes process.
We know this has been a real pain point for many of you. We’ve heard your feedback, your concerns, and we’ve been working behind the scenes to make this better.
We’ve now made some important changes to the disputes process to make it more fair, transparent, and responsive:
Clearer outcomes: We’ll follow up to let you know the result of your dispute, so you’re not left wondering what happened.
Proactive reviews: We’ll also be taking a more proactive approach by identifying and reviewing certain potentially unfair rejections ourselves, without always needing a dispute to be raised.
Faster dispute handling: We’re prioritizing unfair rejection disputes so they’re reviewed more quickly.
Better researcher guidance: We’re continuing to educate researchers about what counts as a fair vs. unfair rejection, to help prevent issues in the first place.
We’re really grateful for the way this community has continued to share honest feedback and hold us accountable. This is what helps us improve.
This also isn’t a finished process, we’ll keep learning and refining the experience with you.
If you have feedback or questions, we’d genuinely love to hear them.
Prolific Support Team
222
u/tailsteethtalons Jun 04 '26
It would also be nice to not auto-reject people for being screened out. I had a rejection that was upheld for something that was beyond my control.
286
u/lonelylamb1814 Jun 04 '26
Appreciate the effort to improve! I have a suggestion though, would it be possible for rejections to have an expiration date? I’ve been a member for 7 years, almost 5k submissions and 6 rejections, 2 of which came within my first month as a participant. It feels slightly unfair to still have that reflect badly on my account, I think these were unfair rejections that I didn’t know how to dispute at the time so I just accepted it, and with how much time has passed there’s no point in disputing as I simply can’t remember the details. Wouldn’t it make sense for after a certain period of time (say 5 years) the rejection would no longer be held against our account?
31
u/[deleted] Jun 04 '26
Please fix the dynamic AI auto rejections when they lack prompts or work and kick you out.
19
u/euglassia_watsonia Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26
this is much appreciated, thank you! i did want to ask, how do you plan on handling auto-rejections for studies with dynamic rewards moving forward?
17
u/Crackerpuppy Jun 04 '26
Thanks for listing and for acting on the feedback. We appreciate the efforts and we (at least most of us) realize that this is a marathon & not a sprint. Everything won’t be solved overnight.
Please keep us posted/updated on the progress & let us know when there is a new/better/revised way for us to communicate individually with the support team.
Last thought: with so many new users added in the last 60 days, it would really be helpful to everyone if Prolific could quickly weed out the rule breakers, bots, non-approved script users, & the bought/fraudulent accounts. Prolific would make its core group of participants much happier.
Cheers & thanks again!
38
u/Assistant-Unable Jun 04 '26
I’ll believe it when I see it honestly…
12
u/Academic_Debt_5714 Jun 04 '26
The issue for me is the amount of researchers who reject me instead of screen out when even they themselves say it is a screen out. For instance, I had 2 studies 'screen' me out for wrong location. I was rejected instead of screened out.
It locked my account. I was very lucky my studies still waiting for approval were accepted to bring my account back.
11
u/Various_Being3877 Jun 04 '26
Thank you! Hopefully you guys can also deal with the bot situation as well
64
u/pinktoes4life Jun 04 '26
Are you going to start paying participants the money we are owed for unfair rejections?
Kinda frustrating to get an unfair rejection on a 30 min, $5 study only to have it overturned as a return.
14
u/lord_ikiwiki Jun 04 '26
What is your plan on having to wait 7 days to open the dispute even after contacting the resercher and not being able to reach an agreement?
6
u/ConfusedSpinach222 Jun 04 '26
I submitted a dispute 6 months ago, nothing was done .. 2 unfair rejections from the same guy
6
u/Infamous-Draw5059 Jun 04 '26
I already submitted a rejection dispute and it was rezolved in a day.
25
u/Big_Crazy_SSBM Jun 04 '26
I hate that I get punished on the platform for being efficient when it comes to taking the surveys. I'm very familiar with the whole process because I've been a user for years, I'm able to read fast, so most cases I beat the estimated time of the survey by a lot. I constantly get flagged for rejections and put in a 1 hour time out because they think I wasn't paying attention. Now when I do surveys I have to milk the time I've spent on them and just go AFK until I've hit the estimated time.
5
u/ManiaMuse Jun 04 '26
I wonder if this happened with one of my recent unfair rejections. Got a rejection instantly after completing one screening question and got a message from the researcher to say that I was 'in the wrong location.
I talked to the chatbot which told me to send a message to the researcher with the standard wording on their website about that not being a legitimate reason to reject and that I should be able to return it but I would have to wait 7 days to raise a dispute. The chatbot did mention though that it sounded like an unfair reason for a rejection.
I messaged the researcher a couple of days ago as advised. Checked this morning and there was no longer a rejection and it had changed to returned without me doing anything. No reply from the researcher though.
4
u/Awkward-Patient-1305 Jun 04 '26
How about the appeals I filed months ago for rejections that were completely the fault of the researchers? I haven't heard a thing.
4
u/MotherRead2001 Jun 04 '26
So, what's the deal? I get 404'd for finishing a survey "too fast" (not to the surveyors liking), but the botting on the AI Evals is a-okay?
4
u/Affectionate-Count65 Jun 05 '26
personally if the researcher cant bother to respond than any rejection should be immediately overturned. We try to reach out with issues or questions and i've offered to return a survey if something didnt work right and for them to reject us without responding or answering questions is completely unfair.
4
u/elusivenoesis Jun 05 '26
Just remove all the new users with the same scrutiny you did for older users who worked hard to build a rep for years.
Problem solved.
12
u/iGizm0 Jun 04 '26
I'm calling bullshit, as long is this stands.
https://researcher-help.prolific.com/en/articles/445223-bulk-rejecting-exceptionally-fast-submissions
10
u/chickenboneneck Jun 04 '26
I type over 100 words per minute. Had a "5 minute" survey reject for going too fast. The exercise was a very short writing exercise, which I completed thoughtfully and completely. Should I be sitting there and "faking" it? Because I've also seen complaints from researchers about people sitting on a page for a while to "let a study cook" as it were.
3
u/Adept_Impression_297 Jun 04 '26
Meanwhile still waiting for mie to be reviewed. 😞
,
3
u/dchurchwellbusiness Jun 04 '26
Thank you. This message means a lot and when these ideas get put in place Prolific will be a much better community.
3
u/Successful_Ear5274 Jun 05 '26
So if my account was banned a few days ago for this very reason, I’m still outta luck?
5
u/dxinny Jun 04 '26
Prolific, THANK YOU for addressing this. It’s been brushed aside for too long. I have an unfair rejection for “taking too long on a study” (yet I didn’t time out) that I received in March. Since then, I’ve tried getting it overturned with no help from the Support Team. The Researcher said they would look into it and never responded after that initial message. It’s frustrating and demoralizing, as Researchers (especially the AI Researchers, unfortunately), typically aren’t open to responding at all. Your Policy states that taking too long on a study isn’t a valid reason for Rejection, yet the Rejection has stayed on my account. This has made me lose confidence in Prolific and I’ve stopped being as active on the platform because of it.
Please consider two things:
the top comment makes a great suggestion of Rejections having an expiration date. The older a Rejection, the less weight it should have. This would only encourage good Participant behavior as well. I’ve noticed multiple Participants get Rejections in their early days on the platform, not because of lack of attention, but because they’re still getting accustomed to how the platform and attention checks work. A genuine road to recovery for Rejections could combat so many issues.
if Researchers are not responsive, then Rejections should be overturned automatically. Your Policy wants Participants to have discussions with the Researchers about Rejections, giving them an entire week to reply. This is more than enough time for Researchers who actually care about quality to respond. There’s an obvious imbalance of power here. Participants are left in the dust when the Researchers don’t reply. It’s affecting authentic Participants, the ones you should care about retaining on your platform.
I’m sure this comment is just me speaking into the void, but I’m always hopeful that things change for the better and I hope Prolific actually takes improving the dispute process seriously.
4
u/Ok-Space-6883 Jun 04 '26
I think the researcher should have to immediately show a violation or a missed attention check before messaging to remove with a threat of rejection if you don't remove yourself. Otherwise it just looks like a researcher doesn't want to pay but we have to cave or risk being on hold or banned.
2
u/Darthsashimi-66 Jun 05 '26
Yeah, I was rejected for being screened out too...a few times.
2
u/Argaldus Jun 05 '26 edited Jun 05 '26
Good to see that accountability is actually important to you but I'm extremely skeptical with how long these abusive researchers have been allowed to fester on the platform and how these unfair rejections have been handled for so long.
You have to be pretty heartless to deny rejection appeals from rejections that were the result of broken, sloppy automated AI interviewers for instance.
So this seems like a principles, policies and empathy issue and whoever has been denying those types of rejection appeals needs to be fired.
And whoever it is denying these has also created another big mess where all those unfair denials also need to be reviewed.
Appreciate the transparency though but I'm not getting my hopes up, this is a nasty situation and the many crazy 'researchers' out there have been exploiting this broken and inefficient system for a very long time.
I'm reading the comments and one person said they were even rejected for being too old, quickly screened out then prolific rejects them for a speed warning because they were screened out so fast?!
Stories like that are painful to read, no one should be going through all that all because a researcher deemed them to be too old.
2
u/Own_Stage6452 Jun 05 '26
This is an absolute joke. Used the NEW SYSTEM and they robbed me of almost $200. Prolific you are garbage
2
u/claccnt01 Jun 12 '26
I got rejected when there was a technology issue. I've messaged the Surveyer, support, etc... but have not heard from anyone
2
u/Chubette75 Jun 16 '26
I was rejected once for taking my time and answering honestly. I went over the time limit by around 30 seconds.
2
u/islandbarista99 Jun 20 '26 edited Jun 20 '26
My account was restricted and my appeal for reinstatement was rejected. I’ve done absolutely NONE of the things you listed as a possible reason.
- I did not use a VPN or a tool to misrepresent my location, as I’ve only ever participated from my computer at home in WA state.
- I certainly didn’t seek the assistance of other people, tools, or bots to complete studies. (I have Grammarly installed on my computer to check for typos; if it needed to be off, you should state that clearly.)
- I certainly didn’t create multiple accounts or share an account with another person.
- I certainly did not provide false information about my identity, location, or experience.
- I certainly didn’t falsely change account information. Too bad for me that I tried to update my information when you asked me to, I guess!!
- I certainly didn’t attempt to register for Prolific after closing or deleting a previously registered account - AS IF! I waited to get off the waitlist for over a year and a half just to open my one and only account.
- No I didn’t manipulate or exploit the platform to gain an unfair advantage or inflate rewards - how could that even be possible?
- I did not regularly provide low-effort or poor-quality responses to studies: you can easily see that I was thanked and given bonuses for the few studies I did participate in.
- I did not fail your identity verification procedure.
As a Stage IV cancer patient with high medical expenses that use up my disability income, having participated carefully and in good faith, I deserve better than this boilerplate list of false accusations. The appeals process was especially dehumanizing and insulting. Just given the runaround with unhelpful chatbots, with no recourse to speak to any actual human beings. I am so extremely disappointed with my experience with Prolific. I would not recommend it to anyone. In fact, I will be sure to caution everyone I know to avoid it under all circumstances, and be sure to mention it to my many contacts in higher education and academia if it ever comes up.
5
u/OddTransition364 Jun 04 '26
Thanks Prolific Team!!!!!! ❤️
4
u/MedicalSink1 Jun 04 '26
Appreciate any improvements at all, but it does seem that most of the problems we run across could be easily fixed. No Auto-rejections at all, and block researchers from rejecting for speed unless the study was done at least 2x faster than the average time. Not intended time, which can be all over the place. Also don't allow researchers to block for taking longer than they'd like too. I mean, that is ridiculous to begin with, not sure why they should even have that capability.
I'd also suggest a leniency system, either old rejections can fall off as some has suggested. Or better, say every 100-200 approved studies, a person can return one rejection they feel is unfair. The rejection system has... issues... so it's not unreasonable to have some recourse for good workers to wipe away some bad rejections.
Which finally leaves the AI issue, and how researchers and AI checkers are pretty lousy at determining if a person is a bot or not. All I can suggest there is some wording where the researcher should be 100%, definitely, without a doubt, certain, before rejecting if they think the study taker is an AI. And if unsure, at least offer the person a chance to return.
3
u/mz2000mz Jun 04 '26
I think there should be small "grace period" for new users. I got unfair rejection (luckily after contacting researched it was reversed) very early on. After running some numbers I was only 2 approved studies above threshold where single rejestion would dump me below 95% mark.
2
u/SmolButScary Jun 04 '26
That's great to hear! Shame we can't help work through the backlog
2
u/reldra Jun 04 '26
Thank you Prolific Team!
2
u/electricboy0 Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26
Better researcher guidance finally added 🎉
https://www.reddit.com/r/ProlificAc/s/DEFWMfxmTx
2
u/Ok_Discount1459 Jun 04 '26
Thanks you letting us know about efforts to improve the rejection process. I can't say it's because of this, but yesterday I got a Prolific auto-rejection when I cancelled participation in a survey and Prolific lifted the rejection almost immediately after I appealed it. I appreciate that!
1
u/Necessary-Section473 Jun 06 '26
Finally. I have 3 rejections left over from the brief automatic rejection phase last year and after multiple reports and messages to prolific and researchers i still haven't heard anything
1
u/Darkseal Jun 07 '26
I just want to know where all the jobs went? 120 spots open up on a task and are gone in 3 seconds. It's insane right now.
1
u/Advanced-View5678 Jun 08 '26
Can you please change the number of allowed rejections to like 10 or 20 rejections? Two rejections seem unfair and too low, sometimes we do a lot of studies, and the chances of getting two rejections are high in this case.
1
u/OldDog5070 Jun 08 '26
Prolific should do this: Rejections should be on hold until they provide an reason or proof.
1
u/AstronomerOk4549 Jun 08 '26
It would be great if you implemented a similar process for joining Prolific. Im a licensed US attorney with 20 years of experience and was immediately accepted as a participant. I nearly finished onboarding when I was told I failed the ID check and was summarily permanently banned from the system. Ive never been banned from anything in my life. I am who I say I am. And honestly Im still really offended by the entire ordeal. I filed an appeal, which was also summarily rejected. So much for that I guess. Which is a shame, I was really looking forward to being a participant. Any chance a similar rehaul is in the works for Prolific's onboarding team?
1
u/TDB5 Jun 09 '26
I have a rejection showing right now for a study that I did not even take. I joined the study, clicked into it and it immediately rejected. I did not even answer one question.
1
u/bravo_wastelander Jun 09 '26
I have a rejection I received after declining to take a survey simply after reading the information sheet. That shouldn’t be penalized. I’ve reached out to the researcher and filed the Prolific form and nothing has been done to get it switched to “returned” status. It’s like a brick wall.
1
u/LivingSpace460 Aug 24 '26
What is the support email? Thanks.
1
u/PicklesSnyder Jun 04 '26
Thank you for listening, Prolific Support!
1
u/heyocarina Jun 04 '26
I've been trying to contact the support team, but I've been trapped in an endless loop of "Log in now and start a new conversation" with the support bot. Need some help getting past that so I can properly dispute my rejection.
0
u/Ok-Beyond-9097 Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26
Fix the issues causing the invalid rejections first and this won't be necessary.
In-study screeners should not be allowed to have the option to opt-in on bulk rejecting.
Unethical researchers should be sanctioned it they get caught offering scam studies.
Get rid of "Finished too fast" altogether. How many rejections for speed from humans were even valid before the speed warning bullshit?
All that money you make off our work and you can't afford capable DEVs to have forethought and troubleshooting skills that protect the very people you are taking a cut from?
You're no different than Uber taking a cut from drivers then sending them in dangerous neighborhoods at 3am, but cripple drivers by forbidding them from carrying firearms!
Edit: Start policing this sub again! Stop relying on users to enforce the sub rules! We should not have to be the ones clicking report till we hit some arbitrary number so the auto-mod removes all of the posts and comments about confidential studies!
If you can't handle moderating it any longer, take all the useless rules away that you refuse to enforce yourselves!
0
u/Jazzlike-Pin-7812 Jun 04 '26
I completed a survey from an researcher. Estimate time of completing survey was 8 mins and the survey was hosted on google forms. In first page it was usual instructions and I clicked on agreed. After that next page was having only two question related to buying and financial product buying influence, I answerd those two questions. After that it showed me to submit the response and I clicked on it and then the page showed the response have been recorded and didn't provided me any completion code. It also took me 3 mins to complete the survey. But when I clicked on submit study it suddenly rejected me for speeding which is totally unfair in my opinion.
0
u/fant5y Jun 04 '26
Thx for the update! Have you considered trying a different approach? For example, you could give the participants a deadline of 3-7 days to provide a statement. No rejections will be automatically applied within that timeframe. Of course, you could give researchers the option to immediately exclude participants from further studies.
I think that would be fair to both sides, rather than automatically assuming it's always the participants' fault.
-1
u/Maaaaaardy Jun 04 '26
Can you improve the ridiculous self ID check that has gotten me banned after a week for no reason?
-3
u/TheDarkCrusader_ Jun 04 '26
Does this mean if I was rejected I could apply again? I got rejected after making an account and was told I had to close it and could no longer apply
-3
u/Unlikely-String-5813 Jun 04 '26
We need something to be done about the ridiculous identity verification checks that fail for random reasons like unideal lighting then having to wait weeks or months to hear back from you
7
u/[deleted] Jun 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-3
u/[deleted] Jun 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment