ArticleRoyal Society open science2023
An epistemology for democratic citizen science.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Regional Cultivation Forms ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- "Scientific or democratic?" Bridging the implementation gap of citizen science through the study of social-symbolic objects.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Citizen Science and Multimedia Didactic Resources: Knowledge of Mosquito-Borne Diseases in an Urban Area of Southwestern Colombia.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2024Article
- Open science in energy research.Open research Europe · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
More than ever, humanity relies on robust scientific knowledge of the world and our place within it. Unfortunately, our contemporary view of science is still suffused with outdated ideas about scientific knowledge production based on a naive kind of realism. These ideas persist among members of the public and scientists alike. They contribute to an ultra-competitive system of academic research, which sacrifices long-term productivity through an excessive obsession with short-term efficiency. Efforts to diversify this system come from a movement called democratic citizen science, which can serve as a model for scientific inquiry in general. Democratic citizen science requires an alternative theory of knowledge with a focus on the role that diversity plays in the process of discovery. Here, we present such an epistemology, based on three central philosophical pillars: perspectival realism, a naturalistic process-based epistemology, and deliberative social practices. They broaden our focus from immediate research outcomes towards cognitive and social processes which facilitate sustainable long-term productivity and scientific innovation. This marks a shift from an industrial to an ecological vision of how scientific research should be done, and how it should be assessed. At the core of this vision are research communities that are diverse, representative, and democratic.
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.