IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v126y2021i1d10.1007_s11192-020-03724-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • M. Pelacho

    (Universidad de Zaragoza
    Universidad del País Vasco UPV/EHU)

  • G. Ruiz

    (Universidad de Zaragoza)

  • F. Sanz

    (Universidad de Zaragoza)

  • A. Tarancón

    (Universidad de Zaragoza
    Universidad de Zaragoza)

  • J. Clemente-Gallardo

    (Universidad de Zaragoza
    Universidad de Zaragoza
    Universidad de Zaragoza)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • M. Pelacho & G. Ruiz & F. Sanz & A. Tarancón & J. Clemente-Gallardo, 2021. "Analysis of the evolution and collaboration networks of citizen science scientific publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 225-257, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03724-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03724-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-020-03724-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-020-03724-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yuxiang Zhao & Qinghua Zhu, 2014. "Evaluation on crowdsourcing research: Current status and future direction," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 417-434, July.
    2. Abbasi, Alireza & Altmann, Jörn & Hossain, Liaquat, 2011. "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," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 594-607.
    3. Núria Bautista-Puig & Daniela De Filippo & Elba Mauleón & Elías Sanz-Casado, 2019. "Scientific Landscape of Citizen Science Publications: Dynamics, Content and Presence in Social Media," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-22, February.
    4. Clemente-Gallardo, J. & Ferrer, A. & Íñiguez, D. & Rivero, A. & Ruiz, G. & Tarancón, A., 2019. "Do researchers collaborate in a similar way to publish and to develop projects?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 64-77.
    5. Franzoni, Chiara & Sauermann, Henry, 2014. "Crowd science: The organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 1-20.
    6. R. Álvarez & E. Cahué & J. Clemente-Gallardo & A. Ferrer & D. Íñiguez & X. Mellado & A. Rivero & G. Ruiz & F. Sanz & E. Serrano & A. Tarancón & Y. Vergara, 2015. "Analysis of academic productivity based on Complex Networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 651-672, September.
    7. Florian Heigl & Barbara Kieslinger & Katharina T. Paul & Julia Uhlik & Daniel Dörler, 2019. "Opinion: Toward an international definition of citizen science," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116(17), pages 8089-8092, April.
    8. Costas, Rodrigo & Bordons, María, 2007. "The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 193-203.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lala Hajibayova & L. P. Coladangelo & Heather A. Soyka, 2021. "Exploring the invisible college of citizen science: questions, methods and contributions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 6989-7003, August.
    2. Egidijus Jurkus & Ramūnas Povilanskas & Julius Taminskas, 2022. "Current Trends and Issues in Research on Biodiversity Conservation and Tourism Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-14, March.
    3. Tošić, Aleksandar & Vičič, Jernej, 2021. "Use of Benford's law on academic publishing networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    4. Ana C. M. Brito & Filipi N. Silva & Diego R. Amancio, 2023. "Analyzing the influence of prolific collaborations on authors productivity and visibility," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2471-2487, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Clemente-Gallardo, J. & Ferrer, A. & Íñiguez, D. & Rivero, A. & Ruiz, G. & Tarancón, A., 2019. "Do researchers collaborate in a similar way to publish and to develop projects?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 64-77.
    2. Barbosu, Sandra & Gans, Joshua S., 2022. "Storm crowds: Evidence from Zooniverse on crowd contribution design," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    3. Cimenler, Oguz & Reeves, Kingsley A. & Skvoretz, John, 2014. "A regression analysis of researchers’ social network metrics on their citation performance in a college of engineering," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 667-682.
    4. Ben Zhang & Xiaohong Wang, 2017. "Empirical study on influence of university-industry collaboration on research performance and moderating effect of social capital: evidence from engineering academics in China," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 257-277, October.
    5. Nataliya N. Matveeva & Oleg V. Poldin, 2017. "How Network Characteristics of Researchers Relate to Their Citation Indicators – a Co-Authorship Network Analysis Based on Google Scholar," HSE Working papers WP BRP 44/EDU/2017, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    6. Kamal Badar & Julie M. Hite & Naeem Ashraf, 2015. "Knowledge network centrality, formal rank and research performance: evidence for curvilinear and interaction effects," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1553-1576, December.
    7. Julian Koch & Simon Stisen, 2017. "Citizen science: A new perspective to advance spatial pattern evaluation in hydrology," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-20, May.
    8. Yang, Jialiang & Li, Yaokuang & Calic, Goran & Shevchenko, Anton, 2020. "How multimedia shape crowdfunding outcomes: The overshadowing effect of images and videos on text in campaign information," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 6-18.
    9. Deming Lin & Tianhui Gong & Wenbin Liu & Martin Meyer, 2020. "An entropy-based measure for the evolution of h index research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2283-2298, December.
    10. Gaviria-Marin, Magaly & Merigó, José M. & Baier-Fuentes, Hugo, 2019. "Knowledge management: A global examination based on bibliometric analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 194-220.
    11. Waltman, L. & van Eck, N.J.P., 2009. "A Taxonomy of Bibliometric Performance Indicators Based on the Property of Consistency," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2009-014-LIS, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    12. Marian-Gabriel Hâncean & Matjaž Perc & Jürgen Lerner, 2021. "The coauthorship networks of the most productive European researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 201-224, January.
    13. Vinayak, & Raghuvanshi, Adarsh & kshitij, Avinash, 2023. "Signatures of capacity development through research collaborations in artificial intelligence and machine learning," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1).
    14. Darrin J. Griffin & San Bolkan & Jennifer L. Holmgren & Frank Tutzauer, 2016. "Central journals and authors in communication using a publication network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 91-104, January.
    15. Livio Cricelli & Michele Grimaldi & Silvia Vermicelli, 2022. "Crowdsourcing and open innovation: a systematic literature review, an integrated framework and a research agenda," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(5), pages 1269-1310, July.
    16. JinHyo Joseph Yun & EuiSeob Jeong & Xiaofei Zhao & Sung Deuk Hahm & KyungHun Kim, 2019. "Collective Intelligence: An Emerging World in Open Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-15, August.
    17. Silvia Blasi & Silvia Rita Sedita, 2018. "Leveraging the power of creative crowds for innovative brands: the eYeka crowdsourcing initiatives," "Marco Fanno" Working Papers 0228, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche "Marco Fanno".
    18. Ryan M. Hynes & Bernardo S. Buarque & Ronald B. Davies & Dieter F. Kogler, 2020. "Hops, Skip & a Jump - The Regional Uniqueness of Beer Styles," Working Papers 202013, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    19. Regina Lenart-Gansiniec, 2018. "Methodological Challenges of Research on Crowdsourcing," Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, Fundacja Upowszechniająca Wiedzę i Naukę "Cognitione", vol. 4(4), pages 107-126.
    20. Pantea Kamrani & Isabelle Dorsch & Wolfgang G. Stock, 2021. "Do researchers know what the h-index is? And how do they estimate its importance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5489-5508, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03724-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.