Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39190609›Full record

ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2025

Incorporating citizen science into IUCN Red List assessments.

Rachael Gallagher, Erin Roger, Jasmin Packer, Cameron Slatyer, Jodi Rowley, Will Cornwell, Emilie Ens, Sarah Legge, Colin Simpfendorfer, Ruby Stephens and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Incorporating citizen science into IUCN Red List assessments.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    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

11 authors.

Rachael GallagherHawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4680-8115
Erin RogerCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Atlas of Living Australia, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Jasmin PackerEnvironment Institute, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Cameron SlatyerCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Atlas of Living Australia, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Jodi RowleyCentre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences (BEES), University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Will CornwellCentre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences (BEES), University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Emilie EnsSchool of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Sarah LeggeResearch Institute of Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Casuarina, Northern Territory, Australia.
Colin SimpfendorferCollege of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
Ruby StephensHawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia.
Thomas MesaglioCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Atlas of Living Australia, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many citizen scientists are highly motivated to help address the current extinction crisis. Their work is making valuable contributions to protecting species by raising awareness, identifying species occurrences, assessing population trends, and informing direct management actions, such as captive breeding. However, clear guidance is lacking about how to use existing citizen science data sets and how to design effective citizen science programs that directly inform extinction risk assessments and resulting conservation actions based on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List criteria. This may be because of a mismatch between what citizen science can deliver to address extinction risk and the reality of what is needed to inform threatened species listing based on IUCN criteria. To overcome this problem, we examined each IUCN Red List criterion (A-E) relative to the five major types of citizen science outputs relevant to IUCN assessments (occurrence data, presence-absence observations, structured surveys, physical samples, and narratives) to recommend which outputs are most suited to use when applying the IUCN extinction risk assessment process. We explored real-world examples of citizen science projects on amphibians and fungi that have delivered valuable data and knowledge for IUCN assessments. We found that although occurrence data are routinely used in the assessment process, simply adding more observations of occurrence from citizen science information may not be as valuable as inclusion of more nuanced data types, such as presence-absence data or information on threats from structured surveys. We then explored the characteristics of citizen science projects that have already delivered valuable data to support assessments. These projects were led by recognized experts who champion and validate citizen science data, thereby giving greater confidence in its accuracy. We urge increased recognition of the value of citizen science data within the assessment process.

Indexed as

Citizen ScienceConservation of Natural ResourcesEndangered SpeciesExtinction, BiologicalAmphibiansAnimalsRisk Assessmentciencia ciudadanacitizen scienceconservation assessmentevaluación de amenazasevaluación de la conservaciónIUCN Red ListLista Roja de la UICNmonitoreomonitoringobservacionesobservationsthreat assessment

Identifiers

PMID39190609
PMCPMC11959339

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.