Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37736278›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2023

Is ecology different when studied with citizen scientists? A bibliometric analysis.

Bastien Castagneyrol, Baptiste Bedessem, Romain Julliard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Bastien CastagneyrolUniversité de Bordeaux, INRAE, BIOGECO Cestas France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8795-7806
Baptiste BedessemINRAE, LISIS Noisy-le-Grand France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9603-6686
Romain JulliardCentre d'écologie et des sciences de la conservation (UMR7204 MNHN, CNRS, SU) Paris France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8897-2514

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ecology is broad and relies on several complementary approaches to study the mechanisms driving the distribution and abundance of organisms and their interactions. One of them is citizen science (CitSci), the co-production of scientific data and knowledge by nonprofessional scientists, in collaboration with, or under the direction of, professional scientists. CitSci has bloomed in the scientific literature over the last decade and its popularity continues to increase, but its qualitative contribution to the development of academic knowledge remains understudied. We used a bibliometric analysis to study whether the epistemic content of CitSci-based articles is different from traditional, non-CitSci ones within the field of ecology. We analyzed keywords and abstracts of articles published in ecology over the last decade, disentangling CitSci articles (those explicitly referring to citizen science) and non-CitSci articles. Keyword co-occurrence and thematic map analyses first revealed that CitSci and non-CitSci articles broadly focused on biodiversity, conservation, and climate change. However, CitSci articles did so in a more descriptive way than non-CitSci articles, which were more likely to address mechanisms. Conservation biology and its links with socio-ecosystems and ecosystem services was a central theme in the CitSci corpus, much less in the non-CitSci corpus. The situation was opposite for climate change and its consequences on species distribution and adaptation, which was a central theme in the non-CitSci corpus only. We only revealed subtle differences in the relative importance of particular themes and in the way these themes are tackled in CitSci and non-CitSci articles, thus indicating that citizen science is well integrated in the main, classical research themes of ecology.

Indexed as

bibliometricscitizen scienceecologythematic map

Identifiers

PMID37736278
PMCPMC10509151

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.