IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0235265.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A citation study of earth science projects in citizen science

Author

Listed:
  • Sten F Odenwald

Abstract

A citation study of a sample of earth science projects in citizen science from the FedCats Catalog was undertaken to assess whether citizen science projects are as productive and as impactful as conventional research that does not employ volunteer participation as a part of their data gathering and analysis protocols. From the 783 peer-reviewed papers produced by 48 projects identified from project bibliographies, 12,380 citations were identified using the Web of Science archive and their citation search engine to the end of 2018. Various conventional productivity and impact measures were applied including the Impact Factor, H and M-indices, and entry into the Top-1000 papers in cited research. The earth science projects tend to under-perform in terms of Impact Factor (IF = 14–20) and the M-index (M = 23. When compared to non-citizen science research in general, there is a ten-fold higher probability of the earth science papers reaching the Top-1000 threshold of most-cited papers in natural science research. Some of the reasons for the lower performance by some indicators may have to do with the down-turn in published papers after 2010 for the majority of the earth science projects, which itself could be related to the fact that 52% of these projects only became operational after 2010 compared to the more successful ‘Top-3’ projects, whose impacts resemble the general population of non-citizen science research.

Suggested Citation

  • Sten F Odenwald, 2020. "A citation study of earth science projects in citizen science," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-26, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0235265
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235265
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235265
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235265&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0235265?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. Lutz Bornmann & Rüdiger Mutz & Hans‐Dieter Daniel, 2008. "Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 59(5), pages 830-837, March.
    2. M.H. MacRoberts & B.R. MacRoberts, 2010. "Problems of citation analysis: A study of uncited and seldom-cited influences," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(1), pages 1-12, January.
    3. Rodrigo Costas & Thed N. Leeuwen & María Bordons, 2010. "Self-citations at the meso and individual levels: effects of different calculation methods," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(3), pages 517-537, March.
    4. Thed N. Van Leeuwen & Martijn S. Visser & Henk F. Moed & Ton J. Nederhof & Anthony F. J. Van Raan, 2003. "The Holy Grail of science policy: Exploring and combining bibliometric tools in search of scientific excellence," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 57(2), pages 257-280, June.
    5. Mu-Hsuan Huang & Chi-Shiou Lin & Dar-Zen Chen, 2011. "Counting methods, country rank changes, and counting inflation in the assessment of national research productivity and impact," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(12), pages 2427-2436, December.
    6. M.H. MacRoberts & B.R. MacRoberts, 2010. "Problems of citation analysis: A study of uncited and seldom‐cited influences," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(1), pages 1-12, January.
    7. Mu‐Hsuan Huang & Chi‐Shiou Lin & Dar‐Zen Chen, 2011. "Counting methods, country rank changes, and counting inflation in the assessment of national research productivity and impact," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(12), pages 2427-2436, December.
    8. Diana Hicks & Paul Wouters & Ludo Waltman & Sarah de Rijcke & Ismael Rafols, 2015. "Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics," Nature, Nature, vol. 520(7548), pages 429-431, April.
    9. Ole Ellegaard & Johan A. Wallin, 2015. "The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1809-1831, December.
    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. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    2. Bornmann, Lutz & Haunschild, Robin & Mutz, Rüdiger, 2020. "Should citations be field-normalized in evaluative bibliometrics? An empirical analysis based on propensity score matching," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    3. Domingo Docampo & Lawrence Cram, 2019. "Highly cited researchers: a moving target," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 1011-1025, March.
    4. Quan-Hoang Vuong & Huyen Thanh T. Nguyen & Thanh-Hang Pham & Manh-Toan Ho & Minh-Hoang Nguyen, 2021. "Assessing the ideological homogeneity in entrepreneurial finance research by highly cited publications," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    5. Martin Ricker, 2017. "Letter to the Editor: About the quality and impact of scientific articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1851-1855, June.
    6. Wildgaard, Lorna, 2016. "A critical cluster analysis of 44 indicators of author-level performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1055-1078.
    7. Félix Moya-Anegón & Vicente P. Guerrero-Bote & Lutz Bornmann & Henk F. Moed, 2013. "The research guarantors of scientific papers and the output counting: a promising new approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 421-434, November.
    8. Horbach, Serge & Aagaard, Kaare & Schneider, Jesper W., 2021. "Meta-Research: How problematic citing practices distort science," MetaArXiv aqyhg, Center for Open Science.
    9. Yu, Xiaoyao & Szymanski, Boleslaw K. & Jia, Tao, 2021. "Become a better you: Correlation between the change of research direction and the change of scientific performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    10. Jakub Kubiczek & Wojciech Derej & Angelika Kantor, 2022. "Scientific Achievements of Economic Academic Workers in Poland: Bibliometric Analysis," Ekonomista, Polskie Towarzystwo Ekonomiczne, issue 1, pages 67-93.
    11. Hu, Zewen & Wu, Yishan, 2014. "Regularity in the time-dependent distribution of the percentage of never-cited papers: An empirical pilot study based on the six journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 136-146.
    12. Lawrence Smolinsky & Aaron Lercher, 2012. "Citation rates in mathematics: a study of variation by subdiscipline," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 911-924, June.
    13. Edmilson J. T. Manganote & Peter A. Schulz & Carlos Henrique Brito Cruz, 2016. "Effect of high energy physics large collaborations on higher education institutions citations and rankings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 813-826, November.
    14. Tobias Opthof & Loet Leydesdorff, 2011. "A comment to the paper by Waltman et al., Scientometrics, 87, 467–481, 2011," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(3), pages 1011-1016, September.
    15. Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild, 2017. "Does evaluative scientometrics lose its main focus on scientific quality by the new orientation towards societal impact?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 937-943, February.
    16. Ruonan Cai & Wencan Tian & Rundong Luo & Zhigang Hu, 2024. "The generation mechanism of research leadership in international collaboration based on GERGM: a case from the field of artificial intelligence," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(10), pages 5821-5839, October.
    17. Ole Ellegaard, 2018. "The application of bibliometric analysis: disciplinary and user aspects," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 181-202, July.
    18. Camil Demetrescu & Irene Finocchi & Andrea Ribichini & Marco Schaerf, 2020. "On bibliometrics in academic promotions: a case study in computer science and engineering in Italy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2207-2228, September.
    19. Jianhua Hou & Jiantao Ye, 2020. "Are uncited papers necessarily all nonimpact papers? A quantitative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1631-1662, August.
    20. Mike Thelwall, 2019. "The influence of highly cited papers on field normalised indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(2), pages 519-537, February.

    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:pone00:0235265. 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.