Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39943138›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2025

Trends in the Application of Citizen Science in Waterbird Conservation: A Bibliometric Analysis.

Ruilin Wang, Keming Ma

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2025. 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. 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

2 authors.

Ruilin WangState Key Laboratory for Ecological Security of Regions and Cities, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China.
Keming MaState Key Laboratory for Ecological Security of Regions and Cities, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China.

Funding

National Key Research and Development Program of China 2017YFC0505804
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Waterbirds serve as indicator species for the quality and health of wetland ecosystems, and their conservation is of critical significance for global biodiversity. Citizen science has gradually emerged in recent years, playing an increasingly positive role in scientific research, particularly in ornithological studies. However, a systematic description of the application of citizen science data in waterbird conservation remains lacking. Bibliometrics is an effective method for analyzing the development of scientific disciplines, exploring trends, and examining thematic evolution. This paper utilizes bibliometric analysis of citation data from the Web of Science database, covering the period from 1970 to September 2024. The analysis reveals that this research field has undergone three distinct developmental phases, with a significant increase in annual publication volume during the third phase. Research focus has shifted from specific species and types of waterbirds to key hotspots and ecological phenomena. Future research hotspots are expected to include migratory birds, China, citizen science, and biodiversity. Influential papers within the field emphasize that the primary focus of waterbird conservation is habitat protection and the construction of habitat networks. As the discipline has developed, there is growing recognition that increasing public awareness of waterbird conservation, starting with student education, plays a crucial role in the accumulation of citizen science data and the advancement of waterbird conservation efforts.

Indexed as

bibliometriccitizen sciencetrendswaterbird conservation

Identifiers

PMID39943138
PMCPMC11816028

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.