🤔 Ask Anything Thread (Newbie Friendly)

Hey @522602294, welcome to the community :tada:, it’s great it have you here!

There are no limits to how many studies you can have running concurrently - even if they contain unapproved submissions. As long as you have enough money in your account to cover the cost of all the unapproved submissions, you’ll be fine :slight_smile:

Hey @Melissa_Kirkovski, welcome to the community! :tada:

What is the protocol regarding approving/rejecting payments in situations like this?

Do you have access to the study to see the quality of their response?

Why would this have happened?

Can I ask if you programmed a quota into the external survey software that was used? We usually advise against this, as our system is designed such that participants are only permitted to take a study when there are spaces available.

For example if there are ten places on the study, only ten people will be permitted to access the study initially. If one of these participants times out/returns their submission, only then will one more space will open up.

There may have been a miscommunication between your external software and Prolific :slight_smile:

Hey Josh,

Thanks and thanks for your reply.

Re ‘different answer’. Their demographic data does not fit the pre-screen requirements. E.g., 'Autism - no ', (other answers allowed to participate) and for ‘Country of residence’ (where participants with no answer are allowed to participate.

I take your point re participant possibly updating their answers to these questions (e.g., country of residence could change), but in the case of the Residence I’ve confirmed that this is present in demographics downloaded at the time of the study.

Does ‘DATA EXPIRED’ always replace data if it has been changed since the study?


1 Like

That is ingenious!
Thanks @Josh @Veronica

1 Like

Hi Josh,
Thanks for your response.
I do have access to the data, but responses aren’t linked to the prolific ID.
Based on date, start and end times (duration of activity) I can find this participants responses with reasonable confidence, and they have clearly selected the first option for every single item. Items requiring open answers have been responded to with “1” or “?”.

I have identified the issue regarding extra participants, and it seems to be because I approved payment for someone who’s responses were returned, but they clearly completed the study, which I confirmed with them via message. I will ensure all required payments are approved and made.


1 Like


I want to create a new study but just to test if Prolific would be the adequate tool for distributing our study. The study would be happening in an external platform and I am not 100% sure that things like URL parameters will work there.

Is there any chance I can test this myself as researcher and as user without paying? At this stage I just want to test the technical feasibility of this, not gather data or publish the study at all.


1 Like


Welcome :slight_smile:

You can create a draft study. But in order to see what it looks like
from the participant’s perspective I think you would need to add
some money to your account. But, on reflection there is no need to
actually pay anyone the money.

If you tell us the external platform then perhaps someone knows
whether it is Prolific compatible or not. Since it is not necessary
to pass parameters from Prolific (you can just ask participants to
copy their ID over the external survey site) then all the survey
site needs to be able to do is show a URL for participants to click
at the end of the survey. Few sites can’t do this. Google forms, which is
free for non-business use, can do it without issue.

Got it! You could create a survey, publish it at the minimum rate with money in your account, white list only your own participant prolific ID (you will need to create a participant account with a different email address) and then using your participant account click through to the study and check it out, but “return” it rather than complete the study when, as a participant, you are should you could have pressed the completion link.


Thanks a lot Tim! The platform is Labvanced, I think it is compatible with Prolific, but I still wanted to test.

I will do as you suggested :slight_smile:



Thanks for the further info :slight_smile:

Re ‘different answer’. Their demographic data does not fit the pre-screen requirements. E.g., 'Autism - no ', (other answers allowed to participate) and for ‘Country of residence’ (where participants with no answer are allowed to participate.

Just to clarify, the exported data doesn’t match the prescreening requirements, or are participants answering questions in a way that is inconsistent with their prescreening answers?

Does ‘DATA EXPIRED’ always replace data if it has been changed since the study?

If a participant updates their answers with new info, then the new info will be available to download. DATA EXPIRED only shows up if participants have deleted their answer, or they’ve allowed a screener to expire without providing new info :slight_smile:

No worries :slight_smile:

Yes, in this case, you would be within your rights to reject this participant. You can read more about the criteria for rejection:

Glad you managed to figure out the extra participants issue!

1 Like

Question about Custom lists.
There is showing 20 eligible people of the custom lists but only one person status showed active but returned. I want to know whether participants will receive the email of study after I start again or they just receive one invitation for the first time that I published the study?
Because I paused the study and start again but no more people join(in case people can’t contact me immediately to schedule the live call meeting, I paused everyday night). I’m wondering maybe people open the study but it shows not available to take part?


I am conducting research with a sample of individuals on the autism spectrum. I have used the prescreen criteria. However, my validation questions ensuring this self-reporting is truthful revealed that sometimes it is not. Theses validation questions occur after my task, as asking these questions risk making the participants sensitive to my hypothesis…and thus confounding my study. Prolific policy says that my validation questions must come first…ignoring the possibility that it could confound my study and making it confusing as to whether it is permissible to reject payment in this circumstance. I am wondering if it is ok to deny payment in this circumstance and would appreciate any guidance, thanks!


Glad to be of help.

According to google, Labvanced has a Prolific integration guide.

(Which you may well have seen already)

There is also this video tutorial which shows the crowdsourcing options and how Labvance also offers to subcontract the crowdsourcing and recruit on your behalf I think.


What time zones are the “started” time listed in for participants? I’m trying to match up a response with someone’s Prolific ID for a participant who did not input their Prolific ID in my survey. Thank you!

We’re sorry, we can’t give you access to Prolific

We’re sorry to say that following a review of your account, we won’t be able to give you access to Prolific. We understand that this is disappointing for you. You can do further reading about what we ask of participants here.

Thanks for your interest in signing up to Prolific and for taking time to appl

i just received this message on my account , is anyone know why?

Hi Jlaski

Welcome to the forums.

I am not 100% sure but Prolific since are based in Oxford in the UK (as shown on their TOS) they are very likely to be using Greenwich Meantime and British Summer Time (which you can display if you google “time now in the UK”).

I hope that is right. I can’t see why Prolific would use a different time zone.


Dear S ebastian

I am sorry to hear your application was rejected, but, I am afraid that this is the researcher’s forum, rather than a help forum for participants.

There is an automated help thing for participants here
(I had a look and the only hard and fast requirement seems that you be over 18)

And a sub reddit forum for participants here, in which Prolific people take part.


Hi, I’ve emailed you guys but haven’t received a reply yet,

So my study requires participants to identify a person. So initially I set up the study to be 2 min long with a 2-min payment. If participants can successfully identify a person specified in the requirement, I then plan to reward them with the bonus payment. However, after I send out bonus payment to those who completed the additional questions, the reward per minute is not reflecting my bonus payment and still says it’s underpaying participants.

More importantly, when I download the receipt and detailed summary, it says unpaid and again doesn’t reflect the bonus payment I’ve made. I will need the correct summary and receipt with “PAID” status in order to get reimbursed from my institution. So can you take a look and try to fix the problem for me? Thanks

Plus, it kept saying “awaiting review” when I’ve approved everyone and given bonus to those who qualified.

Dear Liu

Welcome to the forums :slight_smile:

I don’t know the answer and would be interested in the answer too.

I am unsure as to whether the minimum payment must be met prior to bonuses or not.

Just out of interest, how much is a 2 min payment, and what was the average completion time, if that is not private?