ArticlePloS one2023
Quantifying online citizen science: Dynamics and demographics of public participation in science.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research progress on flavonoid-mediated communication between plants and rhizosphere microorganisms.Archives of microbiology · 2026Review
- Social Justice, Science Agency, and Collaborations: Using Participatory Science to Enhance Learning Outcomes in Postsecondary STEM Courses.CBE life sciences education · 2026Article
- Effective Data Collection Approaches for Citizen Science in Biodiversity Research.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- The influence of psychological ownership on pride in a Citizen Science project on wildlife ecology.PloS one · 2026Article
- Article
- 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
10 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Citizen scientists around the world are collecting data with their smartphones, performing scientific calculations on their home computers, and analyzing images on online platforms. These online citizen science projects are frequently lauded for their potential to revolutionize the scope and scale of data collection and analysis, improve scientific literacy, and democratize science. Yet, despite the attention online citizen science has attracted, it remains unclear how widespread public participation is, how it has changed over time, and how it is geographically distributed. Importantly, the demographic profile of citizen science participants remains uncertain, and thus to what extent their contributions are helping to democratize science. Here, we present the largest quantitative study of participation in citizen science based on online accounts of more than 14 million participants over two decades. We find that the trend of broad rapid growth in online citizen science participation observed in the early 2000s has since diverged by mode of participation, with consistent growth observed in nature sensing, but a decline seen in crowdsourcing and distributed computing. Most citizen science projects, except for nature sensing, are heavily dominated by men, and the vast majority of participants, male and female, have a background in science. The analysis we present here provides, for the first time, a robust 'baseline' to describe global trends in online citizen science participation. These results highlight current challenges and the future potential of citizen science. Beyond presenting our analysis of the collated data, our work identifies multiple metrics for robust examination of public participation in science and, more generally, online crowds. It also points to the limits of quantitative studies in capturing the personal, societal, and historical significance of citizen science.
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.