ArticlePloS one2020
A citation study of earth science projects in citizen science.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The academic impact of Open Science: a scoping review.Royal Society open science · 2025Review
- Measuring epistemic success of a biodiversity citizen science program: A citation study.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A citation study of a sample of earth science projects in citizen science from the FedCats Catalog was undertaken to assess whether citizen science projects are as productive and as impactful as conventional research that does not employ volunteer participation as a part of their data gathering and analysis protocols. From the 783 peer-reviewed papers produced by 48 projects identified from project bibliographies, 12,380 citations were identified using the Web of Science archive and their citation search engine to the end of 2018. Various conventional productivity and impact measures were applied including the Impact Factor, H and M-indices, and entry into the Top-1000 papers in cited research. The earth science projects tend to under-perform in terms of Impact Factor (IF = 14-20) and the M-index (M<0.5) but perform at the level of a 'tenured professor' with <H> = 23. When compared to non-citizen science research in general, there is a ten-fold higher probability of the earth science papers reaching the Top-1000 threshold of most-cited papers in natural science research. Some of the reasons for the lower performance by some indicators may have to do with the down-turn in published papers after 2010 for the majority of the earth science projects, which itself could be related to the fact that 52% of these projects only became operational after 2010 compared to the more successful 'Top-3' projects, whose impacts resemble the general population of non-citizen science research.
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.