Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32620931›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Data-derived metrics describing the behaviour of field-based citizen scientists provide insights for project design and modelling bias.

Tom August, Richard Fox, David B Roy, Michael J O Pocock

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. West European Hedgehog (Ecology and evolution · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Estimating disease vector population size from citizen science data.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
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.

Tom AugustCentre for Ecology & Hydrology, Benson Lane, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK. tomaug@ceh.ac.uk.
Richard FoxButterfly Conservation, Manor Yard, East Lulworth, Wareham, Dorset, UK.
David B RoyCentre for Ecology & Hydrology, Benson Lane, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK.
Michael J O PocockCentre for Ecology & Hydrology, Benson Lane, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Around the world volunteers and non-professionals collect data as part of environmental citizen science projects, collecting wildlife observations, measures of water quality and much more. However, where projects allow flexibility in how, where, and when data are collected there will be variation in the behaviour of participants which results in biases in the datasets collected. We develop a method to quantify this behavioural variation, describing the key drivers and providing a tool to account for biases in models that use these data. We used a suite of metrics to describe the temporal and spatial behaviour of participants, as well as variation in the data they collected. These were applied to 5,268 users of the iRecord Butterflies mobile phone app, a multi-species environmental citizen science project. In contrast to previous studies, after removing transient participants (those active on few days and who contribute few records), we do not find evidence of clustering of participants; instead, participants fall along four continuous axes that describe variation in participants' behaviour: recording intensity, spatial extent, recording potential and rarity recording. Our results support a move away from labelling participants as belonging to one behavioural group or another in favour of placing them along axes of participant behaviour that better represent the continuous variation between individuals. Understanding participant behaviour could support better use of the data, by accounting for biases in the data collection process.

Indexed as

BiasCitizen ScienceCommunity ParticipationData CollectionHumansProblem SolvingResearch DesignVolunteers

Identifiers

PMID32620931
PMCPMC7334204

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.