This study provides a comparative evaluation of the scientific impact of a citizen science program in ecology managed by the French National Museum of Natural History. The results suggest that the yearly number of citations of articles from the program is significantly higher than other publications in the same domain, and this excess of citations tends to steadily grow over time. This indicates that large-scale biodiversity citizen science projects can have a high epistemic impact, but further investigations are needed to clarify specific management methods.
This paper offers a comparative evaluation of the scientific impact of a citizen science program in ecology, ''Vigie-Nature, managed by the French National Museum of Natural History. Vigie-Nature consists of a national network of amateur observatories dedicated to a participative study of biodiversity in France that has been running for the last twenty years. We collected 123 articles published by Vigie-Nature in international peer-reviewed journals between 2007 and 2019, and computed the yearly amount of citations of these articles between 0-12 years post-publication. We then compared this body of citations with the number of yearly citations relative to the ensemble of the articles published in ecology and indexed in the ''Web of Science data-base. Using a longitudinal data analysis, we could observe that the yearly number of citations of the Vigie-Nature articles is significantly higher than that of the other publications in the same domain. Furthermore, this excess of citations tends to steadily grow over time: Vigie-Nature publications are about 1.5 times more cited 3 years after publication, and 3 times more cited 11 years post-publication. These results suggest that large-scale biodiversity citizen science projects are susceptible to reach a high epistemic impact, when managed in specific ways which need to be clarified through further investigations.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据
分享论文
