Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31856212›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Utility of citizen science data: A case study in land-based shark fishing.

Kesley J Gibson, Matthew K Streich, Tara S Topping, Gregory W Stunz

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Nutrient Diagnosis ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kesley J GibsonHarte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, Texas, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-6456-1929
Matthew K StreichHarte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, Texas, United States of America.
Tara S ToppingHarte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, Texas, United States of America.
Gregory W StunzHarte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, Texas, United States of America.
Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Involving citizen scientists in research has become increasingly popular in natural resource management and allows for an increased research effort at low cost, distribution of scientific information to relevant audiences, and meaningful public engagement. Scientists engaging fishing tournament participants as citizen scientists represent ideal scenarios for testing citizen science initiatives. For example, the Texas Shark Rodeo has begun shifting to conservation-oriented catch-and-release practices, which provides a unique opportunity to collect data on a large scale for extended periods of time, particularly through tagging large numbers of sharks for very little cost compared to a directed scientific study. However, critics are somewhat skeptical of citizen science due to the potential for lack of rigor in data collection and validation. A major management concern for shark fisheries is the ability of anglers to identify species. We tested some of the assumptions and value of citizen-collected data by cross-verifying species identification. Specifically, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of shark species identifications made by anglers fishing in the Texas Shark Rodeo using photographs that were submitted as a requirement for tournament participation. Using a confusion matrix, we determined that anglers correctly identified 97.2% of all shark catches submitted during the Texas Shark Rodeo from 2014-2018; however, smaller sharks and certain species, including blacknose and spinner sharks, were more difficult to identify than others. Most commonly confused with blacktip sharks, spinner sharks were most commonly identified incorrectly (76.1% true positive rate [TPR]) followed by blacknose (86.8% TPR), finetooth (88.0% TPR), and Atlantic sharpnose sharks (93.8% TPR). This study demonstrated that citizen scientists have the ability to identify sharks with relatively low error. This is important for science and management, as these long-term datasets with relatively wide geographic scope could potentially be incorporated into future assessments of sharks in the Gulf of Mexico.

Indexed as

AnimalsCitizen ScienceData AccuracyHumansSharks

Identifiers

PMID31856212
PMCPMC6922388
OpenAlexW2994749126

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.