ArticleScientific reports2022
Decision-making of citizen scientists when recording species observations.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Species distribution models predict genome-wide polymorphism and gene flow in an endangered amphibian.Heredity · 2026Article
- Effects of Ecological Complexity on Student Identification Accuracy in a School-Based Citizen Science Program.Biology · 2026Article
- Effective Data Collection Approaches for Citizen Science in Biodiversity Research.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- From Plains to Mountains: Results of Current and Future Climatic Suitability Analysis forPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The records from citizen science of an "endemic" agouti are not thoroughly evaluated nor examined.BMC research notes · 2025Article
- Global impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on biodiversity data collection.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Library of Identification Resources: a FAIR overview of taxonomic keys.Biodiversity data journal · 2025Article
- Emerging technologies in citizen science and potential for insect monitoring.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024Article
- Descriptive inference using large, unrepresentative nonprobability samples: An introduction for ecologists.Ecology · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- The influence of spider news on online information-seeking.PloS one · 2024Article
- Unveiling global species abundance distributions.Nature ecology & evolution · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Citizen scientists play an increasingly important role in biodiversity monitoring. Most of the data, however, are unstructured-collected by diverse methods that are not documented with the data. Insufficient understanding of the data collection processes presents a major barrier to the use of citizen science data in biodiversity research. We developed a questionnaire to ask citizen scientists about their decision-making before, during and after collecting and reporting species observations, using Germany as a case study. We quantified the greatest sources of variability among respondents and assessed whether motivations and experience related to any aspect of data collection. Our questionnaire was answered by almost 900 people, with varying taxonomic foci and expertise. Respondents were most often motivated by improving species knowledge and supporting conservation, but there were no linkages between motivations and data collection methods. By contrast, variables related to experience and knowledge, such as membership of a natural history society, were linked with a greater propensity to conduct planned searches, during which typically all species were reported. Our findings have implications for how citizen science data are analysed in statistical models; highlight the importance of natural history societies and provide pointers to where citizen science projects might be further developed.
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.