ArticlePublic understanding of science (Bristol, England)2018
Selling science 2.0: What scientific projects receive crowdfunding online?
Article in Public understanding of science (Bristol, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Bibliometric Analysis of Islamic Crowdfunding: A Literature Review of Its Journey.F1000Research · 2024Pooled it
- Crowdfunding for health research: a qualitative evidence synthesis and a pilot programme.BMJ global health · 2022Pooled it
- Engaging the public or asking your friends? Analysing science-related crowdfunding using behavioural and survey data.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2022Article
- Signaling effect in social network and charity crowdfunding: Empirical analysis of charity crowdfunding of Sina MicroBlog in China.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Science-related populism: Conceptualizing populist demands toward science.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2020Article
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
Crowdfunding has emerged as an additional source for financing research in recent years. The study at hand identifies and tests explanatory factors influencing the success of scientific crowdfunding projects by drawing on news value theory, the "reputation signaling" approach, and economic theories of online payment. A standardized content analysis of 371 projects on English- and German-language platforms reveals that each theory provides factors influencing crowdfunding success. It shows that projects presented on science-only crowdfunding platforms have a higher success rate. At the same time, projects are more likely to be successful if their presentation includes visualizations and humor, the lower their targeted funding is, the less personal data potential donors have to relinquish and the more interaction between researchers and donors is possible. This suggests that after donors decide to visit a scientific crowdfunding platform, factors unrelated to science matter more for subsequent funding decisions, raising questions about the potential and implications of crowdfunding science.
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.