↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Process, Not Product: Investigating Recommendations for Improving Citizen Science “Success”

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
23 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
198 Mendeley
Title
Process, Not Product: Investigating Recommendations for Improving Citizen Science “Success”
Published in
PLOS ONE, May 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0064079
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amy Freitag, Max J. Pfeffer

Abstract

Citizen science programs are increasingly popular for a variety of reasons, from public education to new opportunities for data collection. The literature published in scientific journals resulting from these projects represents a particular perspective on the process. These articles often conclude with recommendations for increasing "success". This study compared these recommendations to those elicited during interviews with program coordinators for programs within the United States. From this comparison, success cannot be unilaterally defined and therefore recommendations vary by perspective on success. Program coordinators tended to have more locally-tailored recommendations specific to particular aspects of their program mission.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 198 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 3%
Germany 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Spain 2 1%
Canada 1 <1%
Serbia 1 <1%
Unknown 185 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 18%
Researcher 35 18%
Student > Master 35 18%
Other 19 10%
Student > Bachelor 19 10%
Other 27 14%
Unknown 27 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 50 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 45 23%
Social Sciences 21 11%
Computer Science 10 5%
Engineering 8 4%
Other 29 15%
Unknown 35 18%