Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32551435›Full record

ReviewForensic science international. Synergy2020

Working the crowd for forensic research: A review of contributor motivation and recruitment strategies used in crowdsourcing and crowdfunding for scientific research.

Rebecca Parrick, Brendan Chapman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Forensic science international. Synergy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Rebecca ParrickMedical, Molecular and Forensic Sciences, Murdoch University, 90 South Street, Murdoch, WA, 6150, Australia.
Brendan ChapmanMedical, Molecular and Forensic Sciences, Murdoch University, 90 South Street, Murdoch, WA, 6150, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Crowdsourcing and crowdfunding have been successfully used in a range of scientific disciplines and present opportunities for forensic researchers to draw on the power of large numbers of people to contribute to research projects through participation or by providing an alternative source of funding. This review aimed to examine whether contributors to crowd science and crowdfunding for scientific research are motivated to participate or provide financial support by the same factors, and to examine recruitment strategies in an attempt to identify a potential crowd for forensic researchers to approach. There was found to be limited research into crowdfunding for scientific research that addressed the motivations of contributors or recruitment strategies used, and no conclusions could be made. There is a need to overcome low response rates and high attrition over the lifetime of a crowd science project or crowdfunding appeal. It is necessary to target a large number of people who are interested in the subject studied and who want to make a difference in some way and contribute to science. True crime podcast audiences are proposed as they present large numbers of listeners who are interested in forensic science, criminal investigation or law enforcement. These audiences have been targeted for successful fundraising efforts and invitations to participate in crowd activities previously. They should be considered by forensic researchers who are looking to venture into crowdsourcing or crowdfunding for research projects.

Indexed as

Citizen scienceCrowdfundingCrowdsourcingScientific researchTrue crime podcasts

Identifiers

PMID32551435
PMCPMC7287233

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.