Scientific Landscape of Citizen Science Publications: Dynamics, Content and Presence in Social Media
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Open Science: A New Way to Engage in, Disseminate, and Experience Science
1.2. European Science Policy “with and for Society”
1.3. The Challenges Facing Open Science
1.4. Background and Objectives
- analyse the dynamics of scientific output over time through the study of references and mentions of articles of open science
- identify the key subjects addressed in scientific papers on citizen science
- study visibility in social media by identifying the subject matters addressed and their possible dissemination patterns.
2. Sources and Methodology
- Formulation of a search strategy: drawing from an analysis of earlier bibliometric studies, a search strategy was formulated based on frequently used terms relevant to citizen science. That strategy, introduced in an earlier paper [61], retrieves publications by searching the title field (TI) for the following terms: “crowd science”, “community science”, “participatory research”, “participatory action research”, “community-based research”, “citizen research”, “science shop”, “public-participation”, “citizen observatory” and “community engagement research”. Other terms found in similar studies [56] and sought in topics (TS), title, abstract and keywords, proved to be highly pertinent to grow the number of papers retrieved. Terms defined in previous studies [56] as synonyms to existing search concept were included, and were checked with boolean operators and query sets in the iterations performed, such as: “biodiversity monitoring”, “civic science”, “eBird”, “locally-based monitoring”, “neogeography”, “participatory GIS”, “participatory monitoring”, “participatory science”, “PPGIS”, “volunteer monitoring” and “volunteered geographic information (VGI)”.
- Publication retrieval and information processing: the information on the documents on open science was exported (in *.txt format) and a relational database formulated with MySQL, in which all the records were entered.
- Establishment of bibliometric indicators. The study focused on the following indicators:
- (1)
- for activity and access
- ○
- yearly variation in output
- ○
- output growth rate
- ○
- contribution to database
- ○
- output by country (absolute values and activity index)
- ○
- number and percentage of documents with a Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
- ○
- number and percentage of open access (OA) documents
- (2)
- for subject specialisation
- ○
- distribution of output by WoS category
- ○
- Establishment of altmetric indicators: information was gathered on visibility in social media based on publications’ DOI which is a unique identifier indexed in Web of Science (WoS) that allows to obtain the altmetric information for each publication. A script developed by the Carlos III University of Madrid’s Information Metrics Studies Laboratory (Spanish initials, LEMI) was applied to the Altmetric.com API, which delivered the following indicators for each DOI-bearing document:1
- ○
- percentage of documents with mentions in social media:2
- ○
- number of mentions in blogposts, Twitter, Wikipedia, Mainstream Media (MSM), videos and newsfeeds
- ○
- maximum number of mentions per document and type of source
- ○
- proportion of open access (OA) documents and mentions in social media
- ○
- identification of mentions by document cluster (number, yearly variation and source).
3. Results
3.1. Bibliometric Indicators
3.1.1. Activity and Access
3.1.2. Subject Specialisation
3.2. Presence in Social Media
4. Discussion and Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Bartling, S.; Friesike, S. Opening Science: The Evolving Guide on How the Internet Is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Da Silva, P. As Políticas de Open Data em Portugal: Análise da sua Implementação e Impacto. Master’s Thesis, Departamento de Filosofía, Comunicación e Información, Facultad de Letras, Universidad de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- OECD. Making Open Science a Reality. In OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2015. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
- Ayris, P.; López de San Román, A.; Maes, K.; Labastida, I. Open Science and Its Role in Universities: A Roadmap for Cultural Change; LERU: Leuven, Belgium, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Research Information Network. Open Science Case Studies. 2010. Available online: http://www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/RINews_Issue_11_0.pdf (accessed on 5 October 2018).
- Leonelli, S.; Spichtinger, D.; Prainsack, B. Sticks and carrots: Encouraging open science at its source. Geogr. Environ. 2015, 2, 12–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- FOSTER. Open Science Definition. 2016. Available online: https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/taxonomy/term/100 (accessed on 6 September 2018).
- STEPS América Latina. Ciencia Abierta, Colaborativa y Alternativa: Un Camino Para Resolver Problemas de Desarrollo. Available online: http://stepsamericalatina.org/ (accessed on 18 September 2018).
- Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI). 2002. Available online: Https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/ (accessed on 15 October 2018).
- European Union. Regulamento (UE) Nº 1291/2013 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho de 11 de Dezembro de 2013. Jornal Oficial da União Europeia, 2013. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/legal_basis/fp/h2020-euestablact_pt.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2018).
- European Commission. Europa líder mundial da economia baseada nos dados, graças à iniciativa europeia para a computação em nuvem. Comissão Europeia: Comunicado de imprensa. 2016. Available online: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-161408_pt.htm (accessed on 22 August 2018).
- OpenAIRE. About OpenAIRE-Connec. 2017. Available online: https://www.openaire.eu/connect (accessed on 18 September 2018).
- European Commission. Open Innovation, Open Science, Open to the World. A Vision for Europe; European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation: Brussels, Belgium, 2016; Available online: http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/open-innovation-openscience-open-tothe-world-pbKI0416263/ (accessed on 18 September 2018).
- European Commission. Dirección General de Investigación e Innovación. Open Science Monitor. 2017. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/index.cfm?pg=about§ion=monitor (accessed on 17 September 2018).
- Bohannon, J. Who’s Afraid of Peer Review? Science 2013, 342, 60–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Creaser, C.; Fry, J.; Greenwood, H.; Oppenheim, C.; Probets, S.; Spezi, V.; White, S. Authors’ awareness and attitudes toward open access repositories. New Rev. Acad. Librariansh. 2010, 16, 145–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clarke, R. Plagiarism by academics: More complex than it seems. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2006, 7, 5. [Google Scholar]
- Brandt, J.; Gutbrod, M.; Wellnitz, O.; Wolf, L. Plagiarism Detection in Open Access. In Proceedings of the 4th International Plagiarism Conference, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, UK, 21–23 June 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Ocholla, D.; Ocholla, L. Does Open Access Prevent Plagiarism in Higher Education? Afr. J. Lib. Arch. Inf. Sc. 2016, 26, 189–202. [Google Scholar]
- Arza, V.; Fressoli, M. Ciencia Abierta, beneficios colectivos. SciDevNet. 2015. Available online: https://www.scidev.net/america-latina/desarrollo-de-capacidades/opinion/ciencia-abierta-beneficios-colectivos.html.
- European Commission. Open Science Policy Platform Recommendations. 2018. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/pdf/integrated_advice_opspp_recommendations.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none (accessed on 18 September 2018).
- Mejlgaard, N.; Woolley, R.; Bloch, C.; Bührer, S.; Griessler, E.; Jäger, A.; Lindner, R.; Madsen, E.B.; Maier, F.; Meijer, I.; et al. Europe’s plans for responsible science. Science 2018, 361, 761–762. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Silvertown, J. A new dawn for citizen science. Trends Ecol. Evolut. 2009, 24, 67–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haklay, M.M.; Mazumdar, S.; Wardlaw, J. Citizen Science for Observing and Understanding the Earth. In Earth Observation Opens Science and Innovation; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2018; pp. 69–88. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
- Irwin, A. Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 1995; Volume 216. [Google Scholar]
- Socientize Consortium. Green Paper on Citizen Science, Citizen Science for Europe: Towards a Better Society of Empowered Citizens and Enhanced Research. The Socientize Consortium of the European Commission, 2013. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/green-paper-citizenscience-europe-towards-society-empowered-citizens-and-enhanced-research-0 (accessed on 5 October 2018).
- Sullivan, B.L.; Wood, C.L.; Iliff, M.J.; Bonney, R.E.; Fink, D.; Kelling, S. EBird: A Citizen-Based Bird Observation Network in the Biological Sciences. Biol. Conserv. 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raddick, M.J.; Bracey, G.; Gay, P.L.; Lintott, C.J.; Cardamone, C.; Murray, P.; Schawinski, K.; Szalay, A.S.; Vandenberg, J. Galaxy Zoo: Motivations of citizen scientists. arXiv, 2013; arXiv:1303.6886. [Google Scholar]
- Pelacho, M.; Clemente, M.R.; Clemente-Gallardo, J. Ciencia Ciudadana: ¿un Nuevo Paradigma en el Siglo XXI? Ctxt 190. 2018. Available online: https://ctxt.es/es/20181010/Firmas/22206/ciencia-ciudadana-gasto-publico-investigacion.htm (accessed on 5 November 2018).
- Callon, M.; Courtial, J.P.; Penan, H. Cienciometría: La Medición de la Actividad Científica: De la Bibliometría a la Vigilancia Tecnológica; Trea: Gijón, Spain, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- De Filippo, D.; Sanz-Casado, E. Bibliometric and altmetric analysis of three social science disciplines. Front. Res. Metr. Anal. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohammadi, E.; Thelwall, M. Assessing the Mendeley Readership of Social Sciences and Humanities Research. In Proceedings of the 14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference, Vienna, Austria, 15–19 July 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Priem, J.; Hemminger, B. Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday 2010, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neylon, C.; Wu, S. Article-Level Metrics and the Evolution of Scientific Impact. PLoS Biol. 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Orduña-Malea, E.; Martín-Martín, A.; Delgado-López-Cózar, E. The next Bibliometrics: ALMetrics (Author Level Metrics) and the Multiple Faces of Author Impact. Prof. Inf. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martín-Martín, A.; Orduna-Malea, E.; Delgado López-Cózar, E. Author-Level Metrics in the New Academic Profile Platforms: The Online Behaviour of the Bibliometrics Community. J. Informetr. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gumpenberger, C.; Glänzel, W.; Gorraiz, J. The Ecstasy and the Agony of the Altmetric Score. Scientometrics 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moed, H.F. Applied Evaluative Informetrics; Springer International Publishing: Berlin, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Torres-Salinas, D.; Cabezas-Clavijo, A.; Jiménez-Contreras, E. Altmetrics: New Indicators for Scientific Communication in Web 2.0. Comunicar 2013, 41, 53–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson-García, N.; Torres-Salinas, D.; Zahedi, Z.; Costas, R. New Data, New Possibilities: Exploring the Insides of Altmetric.com. Prof. Inf. 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haustein, S.; Costas, R.; Larivière, V. Characterizing Social Media Metrics of Scholarly Papers: The Effect of Document Properties and Collaboration Patterns. PLoS ONE 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson-Garcia, N.; Trivedi, R.; Costas, R.; Isset, K.; Hicks, D. Tweeting about Journal Articles: Engagement, Marketing or Just Gibberish? arXiv, 2017; arXiv:1707.06675. [Google Scholar]
- De Filippo, D.; Serrano-López, A.E. From Academia to Citizenry. Study of the Flow of Scientific Information from Projects to Scientific Journals and Social Media in the Field of “Energy Saving”. J. Clean. Prod. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cabezas-Clavijo, Á.; Torres-Salinas, D. Indicadores de uso y participación en las revistas científicas 2.0: El caso de PLoS ONE. Prof. Inf. 2010, 19, 431–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schloegl, C.; Gorraiz, J. Comparison of Citation and Usage Indicators: The Case of Oncology Journals. Scientometrics 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swan, A. The Open Access Citation Advantage: Studies and Results to Date. Tourism 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gargouri, Y.; Hajjem, C.; Lariviére, V.; Gingras, Y.; Carr, L.; Brody, T.; Harnad, S. Self-Selected or Mandated, Open Access Increases Citation Impact for Higher Quality Research. PLoS ONE 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Eysenbach, G. Can Tweets Predict Citations? Metrics of Social Impact Based on Twitter and Correlation with Traditional Metrics of Scientific Impact. J. Med. Internet Res. 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Costas, R.; Zahedi, Z.; Wouters, P. Do “Altmetrics” Correlate with Citations? Extensive Comparison of Altmetric Indicators with Citations from a Multidisciplinary Perspective. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruns, A.; Stieglitz, S. Quantitative Approaches to Comparing Communication Patterns on Twitter. J. Technol. Human Serv. 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanz-Casado, E.; García-Zorita, C.; Serrano-Lópeza, A.E.; Filippo, D.; Vantic, N. Desarrollo de indicadores para los nuevos hábitos de información y comunicación científica. Educ Med. 2016, 17 (Suppl. 2), 45–50. [Google Scholar]
- Serrano-López, A.E.; Ingwersen, P.; Sanz-Casado, E. 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 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonney, R.; Cooper, C.B.; Dickinson, J.; Kelling, S.; Phillips, T.; Rosenberg, K.V.; Shirk, J. Citizen Science: A Developing Tool for Expanding Science Knowledge and Scientific Literacy. BioScience 2009, 59, 977–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Comber, A.; Schade, S.; See, L.; Mooney, P.; Foody Giles, M. Semantic analysis of Citizen Sensing, Crowdsourcing and VGI. Association of Geographic Information Laboratories for Europe (AGILE), 2014. Available online: http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/111111111/32030 (accessed on 15 October 2018).
- Follett, R.; Strezov, V. An Analysis of Citizen Science Based Research: Usage and Publication Patterns. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0143687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kullenberg, C.; Kasperowski, D. What is citizen science?—A scientometric meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0147152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Onencan, A.M.; Meesters, K.; Van de Walle, B. Methodology for Participatory GIS Risk Mapping and Citizen Science for Solotvyno Salt Mines. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 1828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bordons, M.; Gomez, I.; Fernández, M.; Zulueta, M.; Mendez, A. Local, domestic and international scientific collaboration in biomedical research. Scientometrics 1996, 37, 279–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torres-Salinas, D.; Bordons, M.; Giménez-Toledo, E.; López-Cózar, E.D.; Jiménez-Contreras, E.; Sanz-Casado, E. Clasificación integrada de revistas científicas (CIRC): Propuesta de categorización de las revistas en ciencias sociales y humanas. Prof. Inf. 2010, 19, 675–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thelwall, M. A comparison of link and URL citation counting. Aslib Proc. 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bautista-Puig, N.; De Filippo, D.; Mauleón, E.; Sanz-Casado, E. Trends in Scientific Activity Regarding Citizen Science: A Bibliometric Study. In Proceedings of the 8th Living Knowledge Conference, Budapest, Hungary, 30 May–1 June 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waltman, L.; van Eck, N.J.; Noyons, E. A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. J. Informetr. 2010, 4, 629–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Leydesdorff, L.; Kushnir, D.; Rafols, I. Interactive overlay maps for US patent (USPTO) data based on International Patent Classification (IPC). Scientometrics 2014, 98, 1583–1599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hecker, S.; Haklay, M.; Bowser, A.; Makuch, Z.; Vogel, J.; Bonn, A. Innovation in open science, society and policy-setting the agenda for citizen science. In Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy; UCL Press: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Bonney, R. Citizen science: A lab tradition. Living Bird 1996, 15, 7–15. [Google Scholar]
- UNESCO. Concepts of Openness and Open Access. Open Access for Researchers; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2005; Available online: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002322/232207E.pdf.
- Belansky, E.S.; Cutforth, N.; Chavez, R.A.; Waters, E.; Bartlett-Horch, K. An adapted version of intervention mapping (AIM) is a tool for conducting community-based participatory research. Health Promot. Pract. 2011, 12, 440–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palmer, J.R.B.; Oltra, A.; Collantes, F.; Delgado, J.A.; Lucientes, J.; Delacour, S.; Bengoa, M.; Eritja, R.; Bartumeus, F. Citizen science provides a reliable and scalable tool to track disease-carrying mosquitoes. Nature Commun. 2017, 8, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schroer, S.; Kyba, C.; van Grunsven, R.; Celino, I.; Corcho, O.; Hölker, F. Citizen Science to Monitor Light Pollution—A Useful Tool for Studying Human Impacts on the Environment. In Citizen Science: Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy; Hecker, S., Haklay, M., Bowser, A., Makuch, Z., Vogel, J., Bonn, A., Eds.; UCL Press: London, UK, 2018; pp. 353–365. [Google Scholar]
- Price, C.A.; Lee, H.-S. Changes in Participants’ Scientific Attitudes and Epistemological Beliefs during an Astronomical Citizen Science Project. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2013, 50, 773–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tyson, E.; Bowser, A.; Palmer, J.; Kapan, D.; Bartumeus, F.; Brocklehurst, M.; Pauwels, E. Global Mosquito Alert: Building Citizen Science Capacity for Surveillance and Control of Disease-Vector Mosquitoes. Workshop Report (2); Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Sullivan, B.L.; Aycrigg, J.L.; Barry, J.H.; Bonney, R.E.; Bruns, N.; Cooper, C.B.; Damoulas, T.; Dhondt, A.A.; Dietterich, T.; Farnsworth, A.; et al. The eBird enterprise: An integrated approach to development and application of citizen science. Biol. Conserv. 2014, 169, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amano, T.; Lamming, J.D.; Sutherland, W.J. Spatial gaps in global biodiversity information and the role of citizen science. Bioscience 2016, 66, 393–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Owen, R.; Parker, A.J. Citizen Science in Environmental Protection Agencies. In Citizen Science: Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy; Hecker, S., Haklay, M., Bowser, A., Makuch, Z., Vogel, J., Bonn, A., Eds.; UCL Press: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Groom, Q.; Weatherdon, L.; Geijzendorffer, I.R. Is citizen science an open science in the case of biodiversity observations? J. Appl. Ecol. 2017, 54, 612–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hubbell, B.J.; Kaufman, A.; Rivers, L.; Schulte, K.; Hagler, G.; Clougherty, J.; Cascio, W.; Costa, D. Understanding social and behavioral drivers and impacts of air quality sensor use. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 621, 886–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Macaraig, J.M.R. Citizen Science and Greenspace Planning in the Rouge River Watershed. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2015, 17, 435–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hochachka, W.M.; Fink, D.; Hutchinson, R.A.; Sheldon, D.; Wong, W.K.; Kelling, S. Data-intensive science applied to broad-scale citizen science. Trends Ecol. Evolut. 2012, 27, 130–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Devictor, V.; Whittaker, R.J.; Beltrame, C. Beyond scarcity: Citizen science programmes as useful tools for conservation biogeography. Divers. Distrib. 2010, 16.3, 354–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gorraiz, J.; Blahous, B.; Wieland, M. Monitoring the Broader Impact of the Journal Publication Output on Country Level: A Case Study for Austria. In Proceedings of the Altmetrics for Research Outputs Measurement and Scholarly Information Management (AROSIM 2018), Singapore, 26 January 2018; Erdt, M., Sesagiri Raamkumar, A., Rasmussen, E., Theng, Y.L., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2018; Volume 856, pp. 39–62. Available online: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-13-1053-9_4.
- De Filippo, D.; Silva, P.; Borges, M.M. Caracterización de las publicaciones de España y Portugal sobre open science y análisis de su presencia en las redes sociales. Revista española de documentación científica 2019, 42. in press. [Google Scholar]
- Haustein, S.; Lariviere, V.; Thelwall, M.; Amyot, D.; Peters, I. Tweets vs. Mendeley readers: How do these two social media metrics differ? IT Inf. Technol. 2014, 56, 207–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
1 | This script programmed in python uses the “requests” library to make http or https requests from Altmetric’s API (http://api.altmetric.com). |
2 | The study considered all the sources of social media for which Altmetric.com offers information (https://www.altmetric.com/about-our-data/our-sources/). Mentions in academic networks (Mendeley, Connotea, CiteULike, etc.) have been excluded from the count. |
3 | Gold route is the commonly used and the author pays an article-processing charge (APC) to the publisher at publication time and the publisher makes the document available freely and accessible for everyone. Green OA is linked to the concept of self-archiving: it refers to the authors’ ability to publish the results of their research in OA, archiving their work in a repository for scientific publications (institutional, non-commercial or commercial) or in their personal web page [7]. With bronze OA the document is available to read on the publishers’ webpage but without a license that allows re-use of content. |
Year | No. Docs on Citizen Science (CS) | No. Docs in WoS | Proportion CS Docs/WoS Docs |
---|---|---|---|
2006 | 120 | 1,742,394 | 0.0069 |
2007 | 122 | 1,891,243 | 0.0065 |
2008 | 187 | 2,011,175 | 0.0093 |
2009 | 205 | 2,141,140 | 0.0096 |
2010 | 254 | 2,171,074 | 0.0117 |
2011 | 269 | 2,272,159 | 0.0118 |
2012 | 346 | 2,373,215 | 0.0146 |
2013 | 334 | 2,472,877 | 0.0135 |
2014 | 401 | 2,562,453 | 0.0156 |
2015 | 500 | 2,890,610 | 0.0173 |
2016 | 602 | 3,012,436 | 0.0200 |
2017 | 622 | 3,005,145 | 0.0207 |
Total | 3962 | 28,545,921 | 0.0139 |
Growth | 418.33 | 72.47 | |
Cumulative average growth rate (CAGR) | 16.14 | 5.08 |
Country | Publications on Citizen Science | Total Publications in WoS | AI (% SC Docs/ % WoS docs) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
No. docs | % | No. docs | % | ||
USA | 1624 | 40.99 | 6,566,822 | 28.83 | 1.42 |
England | 511 | 12.90 | 1,571,630 | 6.90 | 1.87 |
Canada | 463 | 11.69 | 961,048 | 4.22 | 2.77 |
Australia | 367 | 9.26 | 752,804 | 3.30 | 2.80 |
Germany | 247 | 6.23 | 1,493,842 | 6.56 | 0.95 |
Netherlands | 150 | 3.79 | 542,188 | 2.38 | 1.59 |
France | 136 | 3.43 | 1,014,794 | 4.46 | 0.77 |
Italy | 136 | 3.43 | 907,197 | 3.98 | 0.86 |
China | 132 | 3.33 | 2,499,931 | 10.98 | 0.30 |
Spain | 102 | 2.57 | 759,415 | 3.33 | 0.77 |
Switzerland | 90 | 2.27 | 396,598 | 1.74 | 1.30 |
South Africa | 88 | 2.22 | 142,965 | 0.63 | 3.54 |
Brazil | 77 | 1.94 | 508,986 | 2.23 | 0.87 |
Sweden | 76 | 1.92 | 339,807 | 1.49 | 1.29 |
Scotland | 75 | 1.89 | 226,297 | 0.99 | 1.91 |
New Zealand | 68 | 1.72 | 121,858 | 0.53 | 3.21 |
Denmark | 67 | 1.69 | 219,693 | 0.96 | 1.75 |
Austria | 60 | 1.51 | 208,690 | 0.92 | 1.65 |
Finland | 60 | 1.51 | 160,014 | 0.70 | 2.16 |
Belgium | 58 | 1.46 | 293,505 | 1.29 | 1.14 |
Norway | 57 | 1.44 | 158,867 | 0.70 | 2.06 |
Portugal | 56 | 1.41 | 168,637 | 0.74 | 1.91 |
Ireland | 55 | 1.39 | 124,743 | 0.55 | 2.53 |
Japan | 49 | 1.24 | 1160,504 | 5.09 | 0.24 |
Mexico | 44 | 1.11 | 158,509 | 0.70 | 1.60 |
India | 42 | 1.06 | 668,574 | 2.94 | 0.36 |
Cluster | No. Docs | Top 10 Words |
---|---|---|
Cluster 1 HEALTH–Participatory Research (red) | 1685 | community-based participatory research; health; participatory action research; participatory research; community; challenges; public health; care; united states; project |
Cluster 2 BIO–Science (green) | 1613 | citizen science; conservation; management; biodiversity; tools; biodiversity monitoring; diversity; climate-change; ecological research; indicators |
Cluster 3 GEO–Participation in GIS (blue) | 1170 | volunteered geographic information; GIS; OpenStreetMap; PPGIS; quality; information; systems; participatory GIS; crowdsourcing; ecosystem services |
Cluster 4 PUBLIC–Citizen Participatory (yellow) | 1124 | public participation; science; knowledge; participation; policy; governance; framework; citizen participation; decision-making; sustainability |
Year | Docs w/ DOI | Docs w/ Altmetrics | % | Cumulative % | Docs w/ Altmetrics/Total Docs w/ DOI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2006 | 89 | 15 | 0.79 | 0.79 | 16.85 |
2007 | 97 | 22 | 1.16 | 1.95 | 22.68 |
2008 | 149 | 32 | 1.69 | 3.64 | 21.48 |
2009 | 173 | 52 | 2.74 | 6.38 | 30.06 |
2010 | 215 | 67 | 3.54 | 9.92 | 31.16 |
2011 | 226 | 78 | 4.12 | 14.04 | 34.51 |
2012 | 292 | 163 | 8.60 | 22.64 | 55.82 |
2013 | 285 | 174 | 9.18 | 31.82 | 61.05 |
2014 | 348 | 223 | 11.77 | 43.59 | 64.08 |
2015 | 452 | 310 | 16.36 | 59.95 | 68.58 |
2016 | 518 | 349 | 18.42 | 78.36 | 67.37 |
2017 | 572 | 410 | 21.64 | 100.00 | 71.68 |
Total | 341 | 1895 | 100.00 | 55.47 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bautista-Puig, N.; De Filippo, D.; Mauleón, E.; Sanz-Casado, E. Scientific Landscape of Citizen Science Publications: Dynamics, Content and Presence in Social Media. Publications 2019, 7, 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7010012
Bautista-Puig N, De Filippo D, Mauleón E, Sanz-Casado E. Scientific Landscape of Citizen Science Publications: Dynamics, Content and Presence in Social Media. Publications. 2019; 7(1):12. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7010012
Chicago/Turabian StyleBautista-Puig, Núria, Daniela De Filippo, Elba Mauleón, and Elías Sanz-Casado. 2019. "Scientific Landscape of Citizen Science Publications: Dynamics, Content and Presence in Social Media" Publications 7, no. 1: 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7010012