Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37988360›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Quantifying online citizen science: Dynamics and demographics of public participation in science.

Bruno J Strasser, Elise Tancoigne, Jérôme Baudry, Steven Piguet, Helen Spiers, José Luis-Fernandez Marquez, Jérôme Kasparian, François Grey, David Anderson, Chris Lintott

Open access · goldAbstract 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. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
10.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Bruno J StrasserUniversity of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-2773-6670
Elise TancoigneInstitute of Geography and Sustainability, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Jérôme BaudryÉcole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Steven PiguetInstitute of Social Sciences, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-8981-0752
Helen SpiersUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
José Luis-Fernandez MarquezCitizen Cyberlab, Information Science Institute, Geneva School of Economics and Management, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jérôme KasparianGroup of Applied Physics and Institute for Environmental Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-2398-3882
François GreyCitizen Cyberlab, Information Science Institute, Geneva School of Economics and Management, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
David AndersonSpace Sciences Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, United States of America.
Chris LintottDepartment of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
University of Geneva · CHUniversity of Lausanne · CHUniversity of Oxford · GBÉcole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne · CHUniversity of California, Berkeley · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Citizen ScienceCrowdsourcingCommunity ParticipationData CollectionDemographyFemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID37988360
PMCPMC10662724
OpenAlexW4388857363

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.