ReviewEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2020
Applying citizen science to monitor for the Sustainable Development Goal Indicator 6.3.2: a review.
Review in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- "Community strengthening through citizen monitoring of water quality: A systematic review".PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- The academic impact of Open Science: a scoping review.Royal Society open science · 2025Review
- Article
- Citizen Science Studies in Nursing: A Systematic Review.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2024Review
- Opportunities, approaches and challenges to the engagement of citizens in filling small water body data gaps.Hydrobiologia · 2022Article
- Attainment of water and sanitation goals: a review and agenda for research.Sustainable water resources management · 2022Article
- The Potential Role of School Citizen Science Programs in Infectious Disease Surveillance: A Critical Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
- Use of ecosystem health indicators for assessing anthropogenic impacts on freshwaters in Argentina: a review.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2020Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The United Nations has called for increased public participation in scientific research, to benefit professionals, the public and the planet. Citizen science has been suggested as a cost-effective means by which this call can be met, and by which monitoring for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) may be carried out. Indeed, citizen science has gained significant attention in recent years as the scale of environmental issues surpasses the monitoring resources that currently exist. However, many challenges continue to act as a barrier to the acceptance of citizen science as a reliable scientific approach. Here, the current state of knowledge on the use of citizen science in water quality monitoring is reviewed, and the potential for utilizing this approach to enhance monitoring for SDG Indicator 6.3.2 on the "proportion of bodies of water of good ambient water quality" is evaluated. The objective of this review is to identify key knowledge gaps and hurdles hindering the adoption of citizen science contributions to water quality monitoring under the SDGs, so that these gaps may be addressed in a timely manner for future monitoring programmes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32144562What 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.