ArticlePLoS biology2019
Improving big citizen science data: Moving beyond haphazard sampling.
Article in PLoS biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.
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
34 citing papers in PubMed.
- Citizen-Science Camera Trap Data Reveal Large-Scale Activity Patterns of the Bobcat (Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Global community science data on mammals underreport small and diurnal species.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2025Article
- Estimating the Abundance of Widely Distributed Primates.American journal of primatology · 2025Review
- Article
- Modelling asynchrony in phenology considering a dynamic representation of meteorological variables.PeerJ · 2025Article
- Assessing citizen science data quality for bird monitoring in the Iberian Peninsula.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Assessing adequacy of citizen science datasets for biodiversity monitoring.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Citizen science is a vital partnership for invasive alien species management and research.iScience · 2024Review
- Article
- Historical redlining is associated with increasing geographical disparities in bird biodiversity sampling in the United States.Nature human behaviour · 2023Article
- Ten best practices for effective phenological research.International journal of biometeorology · 2023Review
- Bean Cuisine: The Potential of Citizen Science to Help Motivate Changes in Pulse Knowledge and Consumption.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Citizen science data reveal regional heterogeneity in phenological response to climate in the large milkweed bug,Ecology and evolution · 2023Article
- Mass production of unvouchered records fails to represent global biodiversity patterns.Nature ecology & evolution · 2023Article
- Leveraging Public Data to Predict Global Niches and Distributions of Rhizostome Jellyfishes.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Mismatch between IUCN range maps and species interactions data illustrated using the Serengeti food web.PeerJ · 2023Article
- Place-Based Bias in Environmental Scholarship Derived from Social-Ecological Landscapes of Fear.Bioscience · 2023Article
- Inferring the age and environmental characteristics of fossil sites using citizen science.PloS one · 2023Article
- Toward Systems Models for Obesity Prevention: A Big Role for Big Data.Current developments in nutrition · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Citizen science is mainstream: millions of people contribute data to a growing array of citizen science projects annually, forming massive datasets that will drive research for years to come. Many citizen science projects implement a "leaderboard" framework, ranking the contributions based on number of records or species, encouraging further participation. But is every data point equally "valuable?" Citizen scientists collect data with distinct spatial and temporal biases, leading to unfortunate gaps and redundancies, which create statistical and informational problems for downstream analyses. Up to this point, the haphazard structure of the data has been seen as an unfortunate but unchangeable aspect of citizen science data. However, we argue here that this issue can actually be addressed: we provide a very simple, tractable framework that could be adapted by broadscale citizen science projects to allow citizen scientists to optimize the marginal value of their efforts, increasing the overall collective knowledge.
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.