ArticlePloS one2026
10 recommendations for strengthening citizen science for improved societal and ecological outcomes: A co-produced analysis of challenges and opportunities in the 21st century.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Citizen Science in Air Pollution Monitoring: Methodological Approaches, Effectiveness, and Integration with Health Research.Current environmental health reports · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Citizen science plays an increasingly important role in generating scientific knowledge and supporting environmental and social action. However, its potential to address complex global challenges remains underutilised. This study explores how citizen science can be improved by involving the public in all stages of scientific research. Using participatory research methods, online surveys and group discussions were conducted with researchers, citizen scientists, and Indigenous participants. Thematic coding was used to identify key challenges, opportunities, and best practices to enhance citizen science initiatives. Additionally, nine case studies were reported using the Standardised Data on Initiatives (STARDIT) reporting tool. The study identified key strategies for improving involvement, engagement and retention in citizen science initiatives. Findings underscore the importance of inclusive, evidence-informed approaches such as targeted outreach, fair compensation, tailored support, and co-creation practices. Ensuring data quality and fostering trust require adherence to FAIR data principles (findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable), transparent validation and sharing processes, and establishing ethical research partnerships. Persistent challenges include short-term funding, which undermines long-term project sustainability, and the lack of centralised support for ethics and project management. Formal recognition of citizen scientists through co-authorship, standardised training, and professional development opportunities can further strengthen involvement and build capacity. Finally, emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence and open data platforms, present opportunities to scale and improve efficiency, provided they are implemented with appropriate ethical safeguards and investment. Drawing together these insights, we provide 10 actionable recommendations for citizen science in the 21st century. These highlight the importance of embedding citizen science in national research infrastructure, education, and policy, alongside consistent evaluation and reporting, to improve its inclusivity, longevity, and impact. We conclude by arguing that as the world confronts climate change, public health crises, and biodiversity loss, broader public involvement in science is key for equitable, efficient and evidence-informed responses.
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.