ArticlePloS one2014
To Crowdfund Research, Scientists Must Build an Audience for Their Work.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Crowdfunding for health research: a qualitative evidence synthesis and a pilot programme.BMJ global health · 2022Pooled it
- The 100-Miles for QVOICES (Queer Voices in Oncology Igniting Change Through Empowered Stories of Survivorship) Campaign: Overview of the Benefits and Costs of Crowdfunding as a Funding Mechanism for Research.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2026Article
- Fundraising in Education: Road Map to Involving Medical Educators in Fundraising.JMIR medical education · 2022Article
- An overview of Fintech applications to solve the puzzle of health care funding: state-of-the-art in medical crowdfunding.Financial innovation · 2022Article
- Exploring Novel Funding Strategies for Innovative Medical Research: The HORAO Crowdfunding Campaign.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Medical crowdfunding in a healthcare system with universal coverage: an exploratory study.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Working the crowd for forensic research: A review of contributor motivation and recruitment strategies used in crowdsourcing and crowdfunding for scientific research.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2020Review
- Crowdfunding scientific research: Descriptive insights and correlates of funding success.PloS one · 2019Article
- Selling science 2.0: What scientific projects receive crowdfunding online?Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2018Article
- A Guide to Scientific Crowdfunding.PLoS biology · 2016Article
- Preeclampsia - will orphan drug status facilitate innovative biological therapies?Frontiers in surgery · 2015Review
- The landscape of biomedical research funding in Brazil: a current overview.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As rates of traditional sources of scientific funding decline, scientists have become increasingly interested in crowdfunding as a means of bringing in new money for research. In fields where crowdfunding has become a major venue for fundraising such as the arts and technology, building an audience for one's work is key for successful crowdfunding. For science, to what extent does audience building, via engagement and outreach, increase a scientist's abilities to bring in money via crowdfunding? Here we report on an analysis of the #SciFund Challenge, a crowdfunding experiment in which 159 scientists attempted to crowdfund their research. Using data gathered from a survey of participants, internet metrics, and logs of project donations, we find that public engagement is the key to crowdfunding success. Building an audience or "fanbase" and actively engaging with that audience as well as seeking to broaden the reach of one's audience indirectly increases levels of funding. Audience size and effort interact to bring in more people to view a scientist's project proposal, leading to funding. We discuss how projects capable of raising levels of funds commensurate with traditional funding agencies will need to incorporate direct involvement of the public with science. We suggest that if scientists and research institutions wish to tap this new source of funds, they will need to encourage and reward activities that allow scientists to engage with the public.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.