Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37146022›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Practical recommendations from a multi-perspective needs and challenges assessment of citizen science games.

Joshua Aaron Miller, Libuše Hannah Vepřek, Sebastian Deterding, Seth Cooper

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Joshua Aaron MillerNortheastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6783-7567
Libuše Hannah VepřekLudwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0672-6633
Sebastian DeterdingImperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Seth CooperNortheastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-4504-0877

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Citizen science games are an increasingly popular form of citizen science, in which volunteer participants engage in scientific research while playing a game. Their success depends on a diverse set of stakeholders working together-scientists, volunteers, and game developers. Yet the potential needs of these stakeholder groups and their possible tensions are poorly understood. To identify these needs and possible tensions, we conducted a qualitative data analysis of two years of ethnographic research and 57 interviews with stakeholders from 10 citizen science games, following a combination of grounded theory and reflexive thematic analysis. We identify individual stakeholder needs as well as important barriers to citizen science game success. These include the ambiguous allocation of developer roles, limited resources and funding dependencies, the need for a citizen science game community, and science-game tensions. We derive recommendations for addressing these barriers.

Indexed as

Citizen ScienceHumansResearch DesignVolunteers

Identifiers

PMID37146022
PMCPMC10162532

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.