IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0143687.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Analysis of Citizen Science Based Research: Usage and Publication Patterns

Author

Listed:
  • Ria Follett
  • Vladimir Strezov

Abstract

The use of citizen science for scientific discovery relies on the acceptance of this method by the scientific community. Using the Web of Science and Scopus as the source of peer reviewed articles, an analysis of all published articles on “citizen science” confirmed its growth, and found that significant research on methodology and validation techniques preceded the rapid rise of the publications on research outcomes based on citizen science methods. Of considerable interest is the growing number of studies relying on the re-use of collected datasets from past citizen science research projects, which used data from either individual or multiple citizen science projects for new discoveries, such as for climate change research. The extent to which citizen science has been used in scientific discovery demonstrates its importance as a research approach. This broad analysis of peer reviewed papers on citizen science, that included not only citizen science projects, but the theory and methods developed to underpin the research, highlights the breadth and depth of the citizen science approach and encourages cross-fertilization between the different disciplines.

Suggested Citation

  • Ria Follett & Vladimir Strezov, 2015. "An Analysis of Citizen Science Based Research: Usage and Publication Patterns," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-14, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0143687
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0143687
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0143687
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0143687&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0143687?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Alexander Kawrykow & Gary Roumanis & Alfred Kam & Daniel Kwak & Clarence Leung & Chu Wu & Eleyine Zarour & Phylo players & Luis Sarmenta & Mathieu Blanchette & Jérôme Waldispühl, 2012. "Phylo: A Citizen Science Approach for Improving Multiple Sequence Alignment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(3), pages 1-9, March.
    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. Lisa Pettibone & Katrin Vohland & David Ziegler, 2017. "Understanding the (inter)disciplinary and institutional diversity of citizen science: A survey of current practice in Germany and Austria," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-16, June.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Kofi A. A-O. Agyei-Henaku & Charlotte Badu-Prah & Francis Srofenyoh & Ferguson K. Gidiglo & Akua Agyeiwaa-Afrane & Justice G. Djokoto, 2024. "Citations of Publications on Foreign Direct Investments into Agribusiness: Nature, Variability and Drivers," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(1), pages 21582440241, February.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Wenceslao Arroyo-Machado & Daniel Torres-Salinas & Nicolas Robinson-Garcia, 2021. "Identifying and characterizing social media communities: a socio-semantic network approach to altmetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 9267-9289, November.
    8. Mike Thelwall & Stefanie Haustein & Vincent Larivière & Cassidy R Sugimoto, 2013. "Do Altmetrics Work? Twitter and Ten Other Social Web Services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-7, May.
    9. Mojisola Erdt & Htet Htet Aung & Ashley Sara Aw & Charlie Rapple & Yin-Leng Theng, 2017. "Analysing researchers’ outreach efforts and the association with publication metrics: A case study of Kudos," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-25, August.
    10. Shahzad, Murtuza & Alhoori, Hamed & Freedman, Reva & Rahman, Shaikh Abdul, 2022. "Quantifying the online long-term interest in research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    11. Liwei Zhang & Jue Wang, 2021. "What affects publications’ popularity on Twitter?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 9185-9198, November.
    12. Bornmann, Lutz, 2014. "Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 895-903.
    13. Catriona J MacCallum, 2011. "Why ONE Is More Than 5," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-4, December.
    14. Matthew Staffelbach & Peter Sempolinski & Tracy Kijewski-Correa & Douglas Thain & Daniel Wei & Ahsan Kareem & Gregory Madey, 2015. "Lessons Learned from Crowdsourcing Complex Engineering Tasks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-19, September.
    15. Naihui Zhou & Zachary D Siegel & Scott Zarecor & Nigel Lee & Darwin A Campbell & Carson M Andorf & Dan Nettleton & Carolyn J Lawrence-Dill & Baskar Ganapathysubramanian & Jonathan W Kelly & Iddo Fried, 2018. "Crowdsourcing image analysis for plant phenomics to generate ground truth data for machine learning," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-16, July.
    16. Saikou Y. Diallo & Christopher J. Lynch & Ross Gore & Jose J. Padilla, 2016. "Identifying key papers within a journal via network centrality measures," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1005-1020, June.
    17. Hao Wang & Hua-Wei Shen & Xue-Qi Cheng, 2016. "Scientific credit diffusion: Researcher level or paper level?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 827-837, November.
    18. 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.
    19. Liwei Zhang & Jue Wang, 2018. "Why highly cited articles are not highly tweeted? A biology case," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 495-509, October.
    20. Thelwall, Mike & Nevill, Tamara, 2018. "Could scientists use Altmetric.com scores to predict longer term citation counts?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 237-248.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0143687. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.