The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Influence of volunteer and project characteristics on data quality of biological surveys: Data Quality of Volunteer Surveys
Abstract
Volunteer involvement in biological surveys is becoming common in conservation and ecology, prompting questions on the quality of data collected in such surveys. In a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature on the quality of data collected by volunteers, we examined the characteristics of volunteers (e.g., age, prior knowledge) and projects (e.g., systematic vs. opportunistic monitoring schemes) that affect data quality with regards to standardization of sampling, accuracy and precision of data collection, spatial and temporal representation of data, and sample size. Most studies (70%, n = 71) focused on the act of data collection. The majority of assessments of volunteer characteristics (58%, n = 93) examined the effect of prior knowledge and experience on quality of the data collected, often by comparing volunteers with experts or professionals, who were usually assumed to collect higher quality data. However, when both groups' data were compared with the same accuracy standard, professional data were more accurate in only 4 of 7 cases. The few studies that measured precision of volunteer and professional data did not conclusively show that professional data were less variable than volunteer data. To improve data quality, studies recommended changes to survey protocols, volunteer training, statistical analyses, and project structure (e.g., volunteer recruitment and retention).
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
eBird: A citizen-based bird observation network in the biological sciences
Sullivan, B. L., Wood, C. L., Iliff, M. J., Bonney, R. E., Fink, D., & Kelling, S. (2009) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.05.006 · Cited by 2,017
Cited by
The science of citizen science: Exploring barriers to use as a primary research tool
Burgess, H. K., DeBey, L. B., Froehlich, H. E., Schmidt, N., Theobald, E. J., Ettinger, A. K., HilleRisLambers, J., Tewksbury, J., & Parrish, J. K. (2017) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.014 · Cited by 389
Schacher, A., Roger, E., Williams, K. J., Stenson, M. P., Sparrow, B., & Lacey, J. (2023) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs15051407 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Lewandowski, E., & Specht, H.
- Venue
- Conservation Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-03-19
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 713-723
- ISSN
- 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1928568878
- Cited by
- 206
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Influence of volunteer and project characteristics on data quality of biological surveys: Data Quality of Volunteer Surveys. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/cobi.12481
- The paper
- Lewandowski, E., & Specht, H. (2015). Influence of volunteer and project characteristics on data quality of biological surveys: Data Quality of Volunteer Surveys. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12481
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.