ArticlePloS one2019
Crowdfunding scientific research: Descriptive insights and correlates of funding success.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 109 citations in OpenAlex.
- Crowdfunding for health research: a qualitative evidence synthesis and a pilot programme.BMJ global health · 2022Pooled it
- Psychological Determinants of Investor Motivation in Social Media-Based Crowdfunding Projects: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Pooled 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
- The Role of Community Science in DNA-Based Biodiversity Monitoring.Molecular ecology · 2025Review
- A critical call to action for transformative cancer care in transgender, non-binary, and intersex populations.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Engaging the public or asking your friends? Analysing science-related crowdfunding using behavioural and survey data.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2022Article
- RETRACTED ARTICLE: COVID-19 crisis impact on the stability between parties in crowdfunding and crowdsourcing.Wireless personal communications · 2022Article
- Article
- Exploring Novel Funding Strategies for Innovative Medical Research: The HORAO Crowdfunding Campaign.Journal of medical Internet research · 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 science.Genome biology · 2019Article
- 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
3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Crowdfunding has gained traction as a mechanism to raise resources for entrepreneurial and artistic projects, yet there is little systematic evidence on the potential of crowdfunding for scientific research. We first briefly review prior research on crowdfunding and give an overview of dedicated platforms for crowdfunding research. We then analyze data from over 700 campaigns on the largest dedicated platform, Experiment.com. Our descriptive analysis provides insights regarding the creators seeking funding, the projects they are seeking funding for, and the campaigns themselves. We then examine how these characteristics relate to fundraising success. The findings highlight important differences between crowdfunding and traditional funding mechanisms for research, including high use by students and other junior investigators but also relatively small project size. Students and junior investigators are more likely to succeed than senior scientists, and women have higher success rates than men. Conventional signals of quality-including scientists' prior publications-have little relationship with funding success, suggesting that the crowd may apply different decision criteria than traditional funding agencies. Our results highlight significant opportunities for crowdfunding in the context of science while also pointing towards unique challenges. We relate our findings to research on the economics of science and on crowdfunding, and we discuss connections with other emerging mechanisms to involve the public in scientific research.
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.