IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v7y2019i1p12-d202975.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scientific Landscape of Citizen Science Publications: Dynamics, Content and Presence in Social Media

Author

Listed:
  • Núria Bautista-Puig

    (Research Institute for Higher Education and Science (INAECU), University Carlos III of Madrid, 28903 Madrid, Spain
    LEMI (Laboratory on Metric Information Studies), Department of Library and Information Sciences, University Carlos III of Madrid, 28903 Madrid, Spain)

  • Daniela De Filippo

    (Research Institute for Higher Education and Science (INAECU), University Carlos III of Madrid, 28903 Madrid, Spain)

  • Elba Mauleón

    (Research Institute for Higher Education and Science (INAECU), University Carlos III of Madrid, 28903 Madrid, Spain)

  • Elías Sanz-Casado

    (Research Institute for Higher Education and Science (INAECU), University Carlos III of Madrid, 28903 Madrid, Spain
    LEMI (Laboratory on Metric Information Studies), Department of Library and Information Sciences, University Carlos III of Madrid, 28903 Madrid, Spain)

Abstract

Citizen science (CS) aims primarily to create a new scientific culture able to improve upon the triple interaction between science, society, and policy in the dual pursuit of more democratic research and decision-making informed by sound evidence. It is both an aim and an enabler of open science (OS), to which it contributes by involving citizens in research and encouraging participation in the generation of new knowledge. This study analyses scientific output on CS using bibliometric techniques and Web of Science (WoS) data. Co-occurrence maps are formulated to define subject clusters as background for an analysis of the impact of each on social media. Four clusters are identified: HEALTH, BIO, GEO and PUBLIC. The profiles for the four clusters are observed to be fairly similar, although BIO and HEALTH are mentioned more frequently in blogposts and tweets and BIO and PUBLIC in Facebook and newsfeeds. The findings also show that output in the area has grown since 2010, with a larger proportion of papers (66%) mentioned in social media than reported in other studies. The percentage of open access documents (30.7%) is likewise higher than the overall mean for all areas.

Suggested Citation

  • Núria Bautista-Puig & Daniela De Filippo & Elba Mauleón & Elías Sanz-Casado, 2019. "Scientific Landscape of Citizen Science Publications: Dynamics, Content and Presence in Social Media," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-22, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:7:y:2019:i:1:p:12-:d:202975
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/1/12/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/1/12/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Oecd, 2015. "Making Open Science a Reality," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers 25, OECD Publishing.
    2. Antonio Eleazar Serrano-López & Peter Ingwersen & Elias Sanz-Casado, 2017. "Wind power research in Wikipedia: Does Wikipedia demonstrate direct influence of research publications and can it be used as adequate source in research evaluation?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1471-1488, September.
    3. Christian Gumpenberger & Wolfgang Glänzel & Juan Gorraiz, 2016. "The ecstasy and the agony of the altmetric score," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(2), pages 977-982, August.
    4. Yassine Gargouri & Chawki Hajjem & Vincent Larivière & Yves Gingras & Les Carr & Tim Brody & Stevan Harnad, 2010. "Self-Selected or Mandated, Open Access Increases Citation Impact for Higher Quality Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(10), pages 1-12, October.
    5. John R. B. Palmer & Aitana Oltra & Francisco Collantes & Juan Antonio Delgado & Javier Lucientes & Sarah Delacour & Mikel Bengoa & Roger Eritja & Frederic Bartumeus, 2017. "Citizen science provides a reliable and scalable tool to track disease-carrying mosquitoes," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 8(1), pages 1-13, December.
    6. Rodrigo Costas & Zohreh Zahedi & Paul Wouters, 2015. "Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(10), pages 2003-2019, October.
    7. Waltman, Ludo & van Eck, Nees Jan & Noyons, Ed C.M., 2010. "A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 629-635.
    8. Loet Leydesdorff & Duncan Kushnir & Ismael Rafols, 2014. "Interactive overlay maps for US patent (USPTO) data based on International Patent Classification (IPC)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 1583-1599, March.
    9. Christian Schloegl & Juan Gorraiz, 2010. "Comparison of citation and usage indicators: the case of oncology journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(3), pages 567-580, March.
    10. Cameron Neylon & Shirley Wu, 2009. "Article-Level Metrics and the Evolution of Scientific Impact," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-6, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daniela Filippo & Pablo Sastrón-Toledo, 2023. "Influence of research on open science in the public policy sphere," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1995-2017, March.
    2. M. Pelacho & G. Ruiz & F. Sanz & A. Tarancón & J. Clemente-Gallardo, 2021. "Analysis of the evolution and collaboration networks of citizen science scientific publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 225-257, January.
    3. Julia Lanoue, 2020. "Disparate Environmental Monitoring as a Barrier to the Availability and Accessibility of Open Access Data on the Tidal Thames," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-19, March.
    4. Gheorghe-Gavrilă Hognogi & Monika Meltzer & Filip Alexandrescu & Lucrina Ștefănescu, 2023. "The role of citizen science mobile apps in facilitating a contemporary digital agora," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, December.
    5. M V Eitzel & Jon Solera & K B Wilson & Kleber Neves & Aaron C Fisher & André Veski & Oluwasola E Omoju & Abraham Mawere Ndlovu & Emmanuel Mhike Hove, 2020. "Using mixed methods to construct and analyze a participatory agent-based model of a complex Zimbabwean agro-pastoral system," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-24, August.
    6. Jianhua Hou & Xiucai Yang & Yang Zhang, 2023. "The effect of social media knowledge cascade: an analysis of scientific papers diffusion," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(9), pages 5169-5195, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniela De Filippo & Fernanda Morillo & Borja González-Albo, 2023. "Measuring the Impact and Influence of Scientific Activity in the Humanities and Social Sciences," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, June.
    2. Daniela Filippo & Pablo Sastrón-Toledo, 2023. "Influence of research on open science in the public policy sphere," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1995-2017, March.
    3. Maryam Moshtagh & Tahereh Jowkar & Maryam Yaghtin & Hajar Sotudeh, 2023. "The moderating effect of altmetrics on the correlations between single and multi-faceted university ranking systems: the case of THE and QS vs. Nature Index and Leiden," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 761-781, January.
    4. Sergio Copiello, 2020. "Other than detecting impact in advance, alternative metrics could act as early warning signs of retractions: tentative findings of a study into the papers retracted by PLoS ONE," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2449-2469, December.
    5. Loet Leydesdorff & Dieter Franz Kogler & Bowen Yan, 2017. "Mapping patent classifications: portfolio and statistical analysis, and the comparison of strengths and weaknesses," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1573-1591, September.
    6. Ajiferuke, Isola & Famoye, Felix, 2015. "Modelling count response variables in informetric studies: Comparison among count, linear, and lognormal regression models," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 499-513.
    7. Barbara McGillivray & Mathias Astell, 2019. "The relationship between usage and citations in an open access mega-journal," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 817-838, November.
    8. Ying Guo & Xiantao Xiao, 2022. "Author-level altmetrics for the evaluation of Chinese scholars," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(2), pages 973-990, February.
    9. Ying Huang & Wolfgang Glänzel & Lin Zhang, 2021. "Tracing the development of mapping knowledge domains," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 6201-6224, July.
    10. Sebastian Vogl & Thomas Scherndl & Anton Kühberger, 2018. "#Psychology: a bibliometric analysis of psychological literature in the online media," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(3), pages 1253-1269, June.
    11. Wang, Zhiqi & Chen, Yue & Glänzel, Wolfgang, 2020. "Preprints as accelerator of scholarly communication: An empirical analysis in Mathematics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    12. Liwei Zhang & Jue Wang, 2021. "What affects publications’ popularity on Twitter?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 9185-9198, November.
    13. Kaltrina Nuredini, 2021. "Investigating Altmetric Information For The Top 1000 Journals From Handelsblatt Ranking In Economic And Business Studies," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(5), pages 1315-1343, December.
    14. Ortega, José Luis, 2020. "Proposal of composed altmetric indicators based on prevalence and impact dimensions," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    15. Zhiqi Wang & Wolfgang Glänzel & Yue Chen, 2020. "The impact of preprints in Library and Information Science: an analysis of citations, usage and social attention indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1403-1423, November.
    16. Rongying Zhao & Bikun Chen, 2014. "Applying author co-citation analysis to user interaction analysis: a case study on instant messaging groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 985-997, November.
    17. Jianhua Hou & Da Ma, 2020. "How the high-impact papers formed? A study using data from social media and citation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2597-2615, December.
    18. Zhang, Yi & Shang, Lining & Huang, Lu & Porter, Alan L. & Zhang, Guangquan & Lu, Jie & Zhu, Donghua, 2016. "A hybrid similarity measure method for patent portfolio analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1108-1130.
    19. Yang, Siluo & Zheng, Mengxue & Yu, Yonghao & Wolfram, Dietmar, 2021. "Are Altmetric.com scores effective for research impact evaluation in the social sciences and humanities?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    20. Valentina Markusova & Valentin Bogorov & Alexander Libkind, 2018. "Usage metrics vs classical metrics: analysis of Russia’s research output," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 593-603, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:7:y:2019:i:1:p:12-:d:202975. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.