Analysis of the evolution and collaboration networks of citizen science scientific publications

The term citizen science refers to a broad set of practices developed in a growing number of areas of knowledge and characterized by the active citizen participation in some or several stages of the research process. Definitions, classifications and terminology remain open, reflecting that citizen science is an evolving phenomenon, a spectrum of practices whose classification may be useful but never unique or definitive. The aim of this article is to study citizen science publications in journals indexed by WoS, in particular how they have evolved in the last 20 years and the collaboration networks which have been created among the researchers in that time. In principle, the evolution can be analyzed, in a quantitative way, by the usual tools, such as the number of publications, authors, and impact factor of the papers, as well as the set of different research areas including citizen science as an object of study. But as citizen science is a transversal concept which appears in almost all scientific disciplines, this study becomes a multifaceted problem which is only partially modelled with the usual bibliometric magnitudes. It is necessary to consider new tools to parametrize a set of complementary properties. Thus, we address the study of the citizen science expansion and evolution in terms of the properties of the graphs which encode relations between scientists by studying co-authorship and the consequent networks of collaboration. This approach - not used until now in research on citizen science, as far as we know- allows us to analyze the properties of these networks through graph theory, and complement the existing quantitative research. The results obtained lead mainly to: (a) a better understanding of the current state of citizen science in the international academic system-by countries, by areas of knowledge, by interdisciplinary communities-as an increasingly legitimate expanding methodology, and (b) a greater knowledge of collaborative networks and their evolution, within and between research communities, which allows a certain margin of predictability as well as the definition of better cooperation strategies.

[1]  Leslie Chan,et al.  What is open and collaborative science and what roles could it play in development , 2015 .

[2]  Sameer Kumar,et al.  Co-authorship networks: a review of the literature , 2015, Aslib J. Inf. Manag..

[3]  Jörn Altmann,et al.  Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks on the performance of scholars: A correlation and regression analysis of performance measures and social network analysis measures , 2011, J. Informetrics.

[4]  Ying Ding,et al.  Applying weighted PageRank to author citation networks , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[5]  Rebecca Jordan,et al.  Citizen Science as a Distinct Field of Inquiry , 2015 .

[6]  M. Newman,et al.  Finding community structure in networks using the eigenvectors of matrices. , 2006, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[7]  J. Baudry,et al.  “Citizen Science”? Rethinking Science and Public Participation , 2018, Science & Technology Studies.

[8]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations , 2001, cond-mat/0104162.

[9]  Chiara Franzoni,et al.  Crowd Science: The Organization of Scientific Research in Open Collaborative Projects , 2014 .

[10]  Alfredo Ferrer,et al.  Analysis of academic productivity based on Complex Networks , 2015, Scientometrics.

[11]  Ailene K. Ettinger,et al.  Global change and local solutions: Tapping the unrealized potential of citizen science for biodiversity research , 2015 .

[12]  Florian Heigl,et al.  The threefold potential of environmental citizen science - Generating knowledge, creating learning opportunities and enabling civic participation , 2018, Biological Conservation.

[13]  E. Ostrom,et al.  A Framework for Analyzing the Knowledge Commons : a chapter from Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: from Theory to Practice. , 2005 .

[14]  Christopher Kullenberg,et al.  What Is Citizen Science? – A Scientometric Meta-Analysis , 2016, PloS one.

[15]  Hiromi M. Yokoyama,et al.  Science created by crowds: a case study of science crowdfunding in Japan , 2018, Journal of Science Communication.

[16]  M. Newman,et al.  Scientific collaboration networks. II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[17]  Mark H. Hansen,et al.  Participatory Sensing: A Citizen-Powered Approach to Illuminating the Patterns that Shape our World , 2009 .

[18]  M. Newman,et al.  The structure of scientific collaboration networks. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[19]  R. Bonney,et al.  Citizen Science as a Tool for Conservation in Residential Ecosystems , 2007 .

[20]  Alfredo Ferrer,et al.  Network analysis to measure academic performance in economics , 2018, Empirical Economics.

[21]  S. Alberti.  Amateurs and Professionals in One County: Biology and Natural History in Late Victorian Yorkshire , 2001 .

[22]  Daniela De Filippo,et al.  Scientific Landscape of Citizen Science Publications: Dynamics, Content and Presence in Social Media , 2019, Publ..

[23]  Watching or Being Watched: Enhancing Productive Discussion between the Citizen Sciences, the Social Sciences and the Humanities , 2018 .

[24]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  From Conservation to Crowdsourcing: A Typology of Citizen Science , 2011, 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[25]  Edward M. Reingold,et al.  Graph drawing by force‐directed placement , 1991, Softw. Pract. Exp..

[26]  N. Baym,et al.  Amateur experts , 2009 .

[27]  Matthieu Latapy,et al.  Computing Communities in Large Networks Using Random Walks , 2004, J. Graph Algorithms Appl..

[28]  Guillermo Andrés Lemarchand,et al.  The long-term dynamics of co-authorship scientific networks: Iberoamerican countries (1973–2010) , 2012 .

[29]  Florian Heigl,et al.  Peer-reviewed publishing of results from Citizen Science projects , 2018, Journal of Science Communication.

[30]  Vladimir S. Ageyev Boris Gindis.  LEARNING IN DOING: SOCIAL, COGNITIVE, AND COMPUTATIONAL PERSPECTIVES , 2011 .

[31]  Jessica L. Cappadonna,et al.  Citizen Science Terminology Matters: Exploring Key Terms , 2017, Citizen Science: Theory and Practice.

[32]  Carlo Giupponi,et al.  Co-Authorship and Bibliographic Coupling Network Effects on Citations , 2014, PloS one.

[33]  Uwe Matzat,et al.  Crowdsourcing for science , 2015 .

[34]  John Darlington,et al.  A Collaborative Citizen Science Platform for Real-Time Volunteer Computing and Games , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems.

[35]  A. Irwin.  Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development , 1995 .

[36]  G. Ruiz,et al.  The Nobel Prize in Economics: individual or collective merits? , 2018 .

[37]  Benedikt Fecher,et al.  Setting up crowd science projects , 2016, Public understanding of science.

[38]  A. Wals,et al.  Special Section: Moving from Citizen to Civic Science to Address Wicked Conservation Problems , 2016 .

[39]  Muki Haklay,et al.  Associations for Citizen Science: Regional Knowledge, Global Collaboration , 2016 .

[40]  Candie C. Wilderman,et al.  Public Participation in Scientific Research: a Framework for Deliberate Design , 2012 .

[41]  Rodrigo Costas,et al.  The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level , 2007, J. Informetrics.

[42]  Mark Newman,et al.  Networks: An Introduction , 2010 .

[43]  M. Haklay.  Citizen Science and Volunteered Geographic Information: Overview and Typology of Participation , 2013 .

[44]  Anna J. L. Carr.  Policy Reviews and Essays , 2004 .

[45]  Trisha Gura,et al.  Citizen science: Amateur experts , 2013, Nature.

[46]  Forrest M. Mims,et al.  Amateur Science--Strong Tradition, Bright Future , 1999, Science.

[47]  Florian Heigl,et al.  Opinion: Toward an international definition of citizen science , 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[48]  David P. Anderson.  Volunteer computing , 2010, CROS.

[49]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  Visualizing Bibliometric Networks , 2014 .

[50]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[51]  Neil Pollock,et al.  Method Matters in the Social Study of Technology: Investigating the Biographies of Artifacts and Practices , 2019, Science & Technology Studies.

[52]  David P. Anderson,et al.  High-performance task distribution for volunteer computing , 2005, First International Conference on e-Science and Grid Computing (e-Science'05).

[53]  Alfredo Ferrer,et al.  Do researchers collaborate in a similar way to publish and to develop projects? , 2019, J. Informetrics.

[54]  V. Strezov,et al.  An Analysis of Citizen Science Based Research: Usage and Publication Patterns , 2015, PloS one.

[55]  Jennifer Shirk,et al.  The Invisible Prevalence of Citizen Science in Global Research: Migratory Birds and Climate Change , 2014, PloS one.

[56]  Katrin Vohland,et al.  Understanding the (inter)disciplinary and institutional diversity of citizen science: A survey of current practice in Germany and Austria , 2017, PloS one.

[57]  E. Hand,et al.  Citizen science: People power , 2010, Nature.

[58]  Mark E. J. Newman,et al.  The Structure and Function of Complex Networks , 2003, SIAM Rev..

[59]  Christopher Kullenberg,et al.  The many Modes of Citizen Science , 2018, Science & Technology Studies.

[60]  E. Hand.  Volunteer army catches interstellar dust grains , 2010 .

[61]  Civic Education and Citizen Science , 2019, Civic Engagement and Politics.

[62]  Qinghua Zhu,et al.  Evaluation on crowdsourcing research: Current status and future direction , 2012, Information Systems Frontiers.

[63]  Helen E Roy,et al.  The diversity and evolution of ecological and environmental citizen science , 2017, PloS one.