The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Can Observation Skills of Citizen Scientists Be Estimated Using Species Accumulation Curves?
Open accessAbstract
Volunteers are increasingly being recruited into citizen science projects to collect observations for scientific studies. An additional goal of these projects is to engage and educate these volunteers. Thus, there are few barriers to participation resulting in volunteer observers with varying ability to complete the project's tasks. To improve the quality of a citizen science project's outcomes it would be useful to account for inter-observer variation, and to assess the rarely tested presumption that participating in a citizen science projects results in volunteers becoming better observers. Here we present a method for indexing observer variability based on the data routinely submitted by observers participating in the citizen science project eBird, a broad-scale monitoring project in which observers collect and submit lists of the bird species observed while birding. Our method for indexing observer variability uses species accumulation curves, lines that describe how the total number of species reported increase with increasing time spent in collecting observations. We find that differences in species accumulation curves among observers equates to higher rates of species accumulation, particularly for harder-to-identify species, and reveals increased species accumulation rates with continued participation. We suggest that these properties of our analysis provide a measure of observer skill, and that the potential to derive post-hoc data-derived measurements of participant ability should be more widely explored by analysts of data from citizen science projects. We see the potential for inferential results from analyses of citizen science data to be improved by accounting for observer skill.
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
A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models
FIELDING, A. H., & BELL, J. F. (1997) · Environmental Conservation · doi:10.1017/s0376892997000088 · Cited by 6,956
Wood, S. N. (2006) · doi:10.1201/9781420010404 · Cited by 4,953
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
Self-citation
Cited by
(2021) · doi:10.1111/ddi.13271 · Cited by 407
Computational sustainability: computing for a better world and a sustainable future
Gomes, C., Dietterich, T., Barrett, C., Conrad, J., Dilkina, B., Ermon, S., Fang, F., Farnsworth, A., Fern, A., Fern, X., et al. (2019) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3339399 · Cited by 126
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Kelling, S., Johnston, A., Hochachka, W. M., Iliff, M., Fink, D., Gerbracht, J., Lagoze, C., La Sorte, F. A., Moore, T., Wiggins, A., Wong, W.-K., Wood, C., & Yu, J.
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2015-10-09
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- e0139600
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2101612055
- Cited by
- 162
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 6.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Can Observation Skills of Citizen Scientists Be Estimated Using Species Accumulation Curves? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0139600
- The paper
- Kelling, S., Johnston, A., Hochachka, W. M., Iliff, M., Fink, D., Gerbracht, J., Lagoze, C., La Sorte, F. A., Moore, T., Wiggins, A., Wong, W.-K., Wood, C., & Yu, J. (2015). Can Observation Skills of Citizen Scientists Be Estimated Using Species Accumulation Curves? PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139600
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.