ArticleCitizen science : theory and practice2019
Citizen Scientists as Human Subjects: Ethical Issues.
Article in Citizen science : theory and practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Innovative approaches to vector control: integrating genomic, biological, and chemical strategies.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Authorship and Citizen Science: Seven Heuristic Rules.Science and engineering ethics · 2024Article
- Diverse sources of normativity in open science and their implications for ethical governance.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Article
- Practical recommendations from a multi-perspective needs and challenges assessment of citizen science games.PloS one · 2023Article
- Core values of genomic citizen science: results from a qualitative interview study.BioSocieties · 2022Article
- Ethics framework for citizen science and public and patient participation in research.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Monitoring Particulate Matter with Wearable Sensors and the Influence on Student Environmental Attitudes.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- A best-worst scaling experiment to prioritize concern about ethical issues in citizen science reveals heterogeneity on people-level v. data-level issues.Scientific reports · 2021Observational
- Institutional Review Board Oversight of Citizen Science Research Involving Human Subjects.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2019Article
- Citizen Science Models in Health Research: an Australian Commentary.Online journal of public health informatics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
An increasing number of human studies are asking participants to have substantial involvement in research. Citizens in human studies may contribute to various research activities, including study design, recruitment, data interpretation, and data and sample collection. Citizen involvement in research raises novel ethical issues for human studies, because individuals have traditionally occupied the role of researcher or subject, but not both at the same time. The confluence of these two different roles in the same person poses challenges for investigators and oversight committees because legal rules and ethical guidelines focus on protecting the rights and welfare of human subjects and do not address issues that fall outside this domain, such as study design, data quality and integrity, reporting misconduct, authorship, or publication. This article examines some of these issues and makes recommendations for investigators and oversight committees.
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.