ArticleScientific reports2020
Data-derived metrics describing the behaviour of field-based citizen scientists provide insights for project design and modelling bias.
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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- West European Hedgehog (Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- The City Nature Challenge as an urban BioBlitz: evaluating Citizen Science contributions to biodiversity monitoring in Berlin.BMC ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Facilitating Large-Scale Bird Biodiversity Data Collection in Citizen Science: 'Relaxed' Point Counts for Anytime, Anywhere Monitoring.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- The records from citizen science of an "endemic" agouti are not thoroughly evaluated nor examined.BMC research notes · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Decision-making of citizen scientists when recording species observations.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- COVID restrictions impact wildlife monitoring in Australia.Biological conservation · 2022Article
- Article
- Estimating disease vector population size from citizen science data.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2021Article
- A novel approach to the classification of terrestrial drainage networks based on deep learning and preliminary results on solar system bodies.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Citizen science for monitoring seasonal-scale beach erosion and behaviour with aerial drones.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Article
- Temporal patterns of wildlife roadkill in the UK.PloS one · 2021Article
- The role of passive surveillance and citizen science in plant health.CABI agriculture and bioscience · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.