Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39470965›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2024

Authorship and Citizen Science: Seven Heuristic Rules.

Per Sandin, Patrik Baard, William Bülow, Gert Helgesson

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2024. 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. Review
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

4 authors.

Per SandinDepartment of Crop Production Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7043, 75651, Uppsala, Sweden. per.sandin@slu.se.ORCID 0000-0002-8567-1393
Patrik BaardDepartment of Applied Animal Science and Welfare, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-2835-919X
William BülowCentre for Research Ethics & Bioethics (CRB), Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-5244-6878
Gert HelgessonDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-0075-0165

Funding

Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas 2019-00548
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Citizen science (CS) is an umbrella term for research with a significant amount of contributions from volunteers. Those volunteers can occupy a hybrid role, being both 'researcher' and 'subject' at the same time. This has repercussions for questions about responsibility and credit, e.g. pertaining to the issue of authorship. In this paper, we first review some existing guidelines for authorship and their applicability to CS. Second, we assess the claim that the guidelines from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), known as 'the Vancouver guidelines', may lead to exclusion of deserving citizen scientists as authors. We maintain that the idea of including citizen scientists as authors is supported by at least two arguments: transparency and fairness. Third, we argue that it might be plausible to include groups as authors in CS. Fourth and finally, we offer a heuristic list of seven recommendations to be considered when deciding about whom to include as an author of a CS publication.

Indexed as

AuthorshipCitizen ScienceEthics, ResearchGuidelines as TopicHeuristicsPublishingEditorial PoliciesHumansResearch PersonnelSocial ResponsibilityVolunteersAuthorshipCitizen scienceCreditInternational Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)Vancouver guidelines

Identifiers

PMID39470965
PMCPMC11522116

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.