ArticlePloS one2025
Science as a commons: Motivations for continued participation in citizen science projects.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study of the commons is a growing field of research that is highly relevant to fostering the sustainability of shared resources, including knowledge resources. Citizen science has great potential to constitute science as a knowledge commons, in which continued participation is essential for the long-term viability of inherently collaborative projects and the strengthening of communities. However, different motivations for participation can significantly influence continued engagement, and, consequently, the sustainability of these projects. This research explores, first, participants' motivations for joining and continuing projects, as well as the reasons for abandoning them. Secondly, we analyse the influence of various motivations on continuity, with a particular focus on highly committed participants-an aspect hitherto scarcely investigated. Specifically, we examine whether these participants' motivations are primarily associated with general interests (e.g., resource sustainability) alongside personal interests (e.g., capability building). This approach aligns with the key finding of commons theory, which challenges the idea that rational behaviour implies only self-interest. The analyses of 478 responses to the survey designed for this study reveal that participants who sustain CS projects through continued participation are driven by a combination of personal and general interests. These findings reflect cooperative behaviours characteristic of individuals who create or maintain commons. Therefore, we propose that science can be understood as a commons that can be collaboratively and sustainably managed by multiple, decentralized communities. Consequently, fostering cooperation is essential for the effective management of shared resources, particularly in citizen science projects. Enhancing our understanding of cooperation enables the better and more effective implementation of specific recommendations, such as optimizing communication among all those involved in citizen science projects and fostering awareness of common goals and collective achievements. In turn, this reinforces personal benefits, creating a virtuous circle that further strengthens cooperation and its benefits.
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.