Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34181671›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Opportunities and limitations: A comparative analysis of citizen science and expert recordings for bioacoustic research.

Denise Jäckel, Kim G Mortega, Ulrike Sturm, Ulrich Brockmeyer, Omid Khorramshahi, Silke L Voigt-Heucke

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Building trust with marginalized communities in participatory acoustic monitoring through dynamic consent.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

Denise JäckelMuseum für Naturkunde Berlin, Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Science, Berlin, Germany.
Kim G MortegaMuseum für Naturkunde Berlin, Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Science, Berlin, Germany.
Ulrike SturmMuseum für Naturkunde Berlin, Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Science, Berlin, Germany.
Ulrich BrockmeyerMuseum für Naturkunde Berlin, Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Science, Berlin, Germany.
Omid KhorramshahiMuseum für Naturkunde Berlin, Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Science, Berlin, Germany.
Silke L Voigt-HeuckeMuseum für Naturkunde Berlin, Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Science, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0960-8069

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Citizen science is an approach that has become increasingly popular in recent years. Despite this growing popularity, there still is widespread scepticism in the academic world about the validity and quality of data from citizen science projects. And although there might be great potential, citizen science is a rarely used approach in the field of bioacoustics. To better understand the possibilities, but also the limitations, we here evaluated data generated in a citizen science project on nightingale song as a case study. We analysed the quantity and quality of song recordings made in a non-standardized way with a smartphone app by citizen scientists and the standardized recordings made with professional equipment by academic researchers. We made comparisons between the recordings of the two approaches and among the user types of the app to gain insights into the temporal recording patterns, the quantity and quality of the data. To compare the deviation of the acoustic parameters in the recordings with smartphones and professional devices from the original song recordings, we conducted a playback test. Our results showed that depending on the user group, citizen scientists produced many to a lot of recordings of valid quality for further bioacoustic research. Differences between the recordings provided by the citizen and the expert group were mainly caused by the technical quality of the devices used-and to a lesser extent by the citizen scientists themselves. Especially when differences in spectral parameters are to be investigated, our results demonstrate that the use of the same high-quality recording devices and calibrated external microphones would most likely improve data quality. We conclude that many bioacoustic research questions may be carried out with the recordings of citizen scientists. We want to encourage academic researchers to get more involved in participatory projects to harness the potential of citizen science-and to share scientific curiosity and discoveries more directly with society.

Indexed as

Citizen ScienceResearch PersonnelSmartphoneVideo RecordingAnimalsHumansSongbirdsVocalization, Animal

Identifiers

PMID34181671
PMCPMC8238189

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.