IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i5p4577-d1087414.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Citizen Science: Is It Good Science?

Author

Listed:
  • Lloyd S. Davis

    (Department of Science Communication, University of Otago, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand)

  • Lei Zhu

    (Department of Science Communication, University of Otago, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand)

  • Wiebke Finkler

    (Department of Marketing, University of Otago, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand)

Abstract

Citizen science projects, which entail scientific work undertaken by members of the public, have increased substantially over the last three decades. However, the credibility of such science has been questioned, especially with respect to its prospects for producing peer-reviewed publications, the principal means by which science is communicated and validated. We conducted a meta-analysis of 895 citizen science projects launched between 1890 and 2018. Three-quarters (674) did not produce a single peer-reviewed paper. The remaining 221 projects produced 2075 publications, although just five projects accounted for nearly half the publications. The average time from project launch to first publication was 9.15 years. Projects in health and medicine and astronomy were most likely to produce publications. Projects in biology (65.8% of all projects), computer science, and social sciences were least likely to publish their results. In conclusion, the “science” element of most citizen science projects is largely irrelevant as it is never validated or communicated. We propose reclassifying citizen science projects into two types: (i) Citizen Science , where the focus is on science, and participants essentially function as sampling devices; and (ii) Citizen Engagement , where the value lies more in citizen engagement than it does in citizen science.

Suggested Citation

  • Lloyd S. Davis & Lei Zhu & Wiebke Finkler, 2023. "Citizen Science: Is It Good Science?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-13, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:5:p:4577-:d:1087414
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/5/4577/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/5/4577/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lala Hajibayova & L. P. Coladangelo & Heather A. Soyka, 2021. "Exploring the invisible college of citizen science: questions, methods and contributions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 6989-7003, August.
    2. Suzanne Van Brussel & Huib Huyse, 2019. "Citizen science on speed? Realising the triple objective of scientific rigour, policy influence and deep citizen engagement in a large-scale citizen science project on ambient air quality in Antwerp," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 62(3), pages 534-551, February.
    3. Franzoni, Chiara & Sauermann, Henry, 2014. "Crowd science: The organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 1-20.
    4. 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)

    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. Julian Koch & Simon Stisen, 2017. "Citizen science: A new perspective to advance spatial pattern evaluation in hydrology," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-20, May.
    2. Yang, Jialiang & Li, Yaokuang & Calic, Goran & Shevchenko, Anton, 2020. "How multimedia shape crowdfunding outcomes: The overshadowing effect of images and videos on text in campaign information," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 6-18.
    3. Deming Lin & Tianhui Gong & Wenbin Liu & Martin Meyer, 2020. "An entropy-based measure for the evolution of h index research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2283-2298, December.
    4. 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.
    5. JinHyo Joseph Yun & EuiSeob Jeong & Xiaofei Zhao & Sung Deuk Hahm & KyungHun Kim, 2019. "Collective Intelligence: An Emerging World in Open Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-15, August.
    6. 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.
    7. O’Connor John, 2022. "Strengthening the science–policy interface in Ireland," Administration, Sciendo, vol. 70(4), pages 29-52, December.
    8. Carolin Haeussler & Henry Sauermann, 2016. "The Division of Labor in Teams: A Conceptual Framework and Application to Collaborations in Science," NBER Working Papers 22241, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Benedikt Fecher & Sascha Friesike & Marcel Hebing, 2014. "What Drives Academic Data Sharing?," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 655, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    10. Bergemann, Dirk & Ottaviani, Marco, 2021. "Information Markets and Nonmarkets," CEPR Discussion Papers 16459, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. Héloïse Berkowitz, 2020. "Participatory Governance for the Development of the Blue Bioeconomy in the Mediterranean Region," Working Papers hal-02555685, HAL.
    12. Mehmet Ali Köseoglu & John A. Parnell & Melissa Yan Yee Yick, 2021. "Identifying influential studies and maturity level in intellectual structure of fields: evidence from strategic management," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1271-1309, February.
    13. Jorge Faleiro & Edward Tsang, 2018. "Supporting Crowd-Powered Science in Economics: FRACTI, a Conceptual Framework for Large-Scale Collaboration and Transparent Investigation in Financial Markets," Papers 1808.07959, arXiv.org.
    14. Sauermann, Henry & Vohland, Katrin & Antoniou, Vyron & Balázs, Bálint & Göbel, Claudia & Karatzas, Kostas & Mooney, Peter & Perelló, Josep & Ponti, Marisa & Samson, Roeland & Winter, Silvia, 2020. "Citizen science and sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    15. Silvia Puiu & Mihaela Tinca Udriștioiu & Liliana Velea, 2022. "Air Pollution Management: A Multivariate Analysis of Citizens’ Perspectives and Their Willingness to Use Greener Forms of Transportation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-15, November.
    16. Mingyang Wang & Zhenyu Wang & Guangsheng Chen, 2019. "Which can better predict the future success of articles? Bibliometric indices or alternative metrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1575-1595, June.
    17. Koehler, Maximilian & Sauermann, Henry, 2024. "Algorithmic management in scientific research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(4).
    18. Stefan Thomas & David Scheller & Susan Schröder, 2021. "Co-creation in citizen social science: the research forum as a methodological foundation for communication and participation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    19. Qin Ye & Xiaolei Xu, 2021. "Determining factors of cities’ centrality in the interregional innovation networks of China’s biomedical industry," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 2801-2819, April.
    20. Anneleen Kenis & Maarten Loopmans, 2022. "Just air? Spatial injustice and the politicisation of air pollution," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 40(3), pages 563-571, May.

    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:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:5:p:4577-:d:1087414. 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.