The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Crowd science user contribution patterns and their implications
Open accessAbstract
Significance: Involving the public in research may provide considerable benefits for the progress of science. However, the sustainability of “crowd science” approaches depends on the degree to which members of the public are interested and provide continued labor inputs. We describe and compare contribution patterns in multiple projects using a range of measures. We show that effort contributions can be significant in magnitude and speed, but we also identify several challenges. In addition, we explore some of the underlying dynamics and mechanisms. As such, we provide quantitative evidence that is useful for scientists who consider adopting crowd science approaches and for scholars studying crowd-based knowledge production. Our results also inform current policy discussions regarding the organization of scientific research.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection
Pimm, S. L., Jenkins, C. N., Abell, R., Brooks, T. M., Gittleman, J. L., Joppa, L. N., Raven, P. H., Roberts, C. M., & Sexton, J. O. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1246752 · Cited by 3,542 · cited 1×
“Fifth, crowd science projects can involve contributors across time and geographic space, allowing them to increase coverage that is particularly important for observational studies (14).”
Predicting protein structures with a multiplayer online game
Cooper, S., Khatib, F., Treuille, A., Barbero, J., Lee, J., Beenen, M., Leaver-Fay, A., Baker, D., Popović, Z., & players, F. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature09304 · Cited by 1,368
Soylent: a word processor with a crowd inside
Bernstein, M. S., Little, G., Miller, R. C., Hartmann, B., Ackerman, M. S., Karger, D. R., Crowell, D., & Panovich, K. (2010) · Proceedings of the 23nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology · doi:10.1145/1866029.1866078 · Cited by 686
Space–time wiring specificity supports direction selectivity in the retina
EyeWirers, T., Kim, J. S., Greene, M. J., Zlateski, A., Lee, K., Richardson, M., Turaga, S. C., Purcaro, M., Balkam, M., Robinson, A., et al. (2014) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature13240 · Cited by 450
Shepherding the crowd yields better work
Dow, S., Kulkarni, A., Klemmer, S., & Hartmann, B. (2012) · Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work · doi:10.1145/2145204.2145355 · Cited by 334
Cited by
Swanson, A., Kosmala, M., Lintott, C., Simpson, R., Smith, A., & Packer, C. (2015) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/sdata.2015.26 · Cited by 510
The diversity and evolution of ecological and environmental citizen science
Pocock, M. J. O., Tweddle, J. C., Savage, J., Robinson, L. D., & Roy, H. E. (2017) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0172579 · Cited by 359
Engaging Voluntary Contributions in Online Communities: A Hidden Markov Model1
Chen, W., Wei, X., & Zhu, K. X. (2018) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2018/14196 · Cited by 173
Torney, C. J., Lloyd‐Jones, D. J., Chevallier, M., Moyer, D. C., Maliti, H. T., Mwita, M., Kohi, E. M., & Hopcraft, G. C. (2019) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.13165 · Cited by 110
Metadata
- Authors
- Sauermann, H., & Franzoni, C.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2015-01-05
- Volume
- 112
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 679-684
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W1993502890
- Cited by
- 305
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 48.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Crowd science user contribution patterns and their implications. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1408907112
- The paper
- Sauermann, H., & Franzoni, C. (2015). Crowd science user contribution patterns and their implications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1408907112
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
