Measuring epistemic success of a biodiversity citizen science program: A citation study

13. Gura T. Citizen science: amateur experts. Nature. 2013; 496(7444):259–261. https://doi.org/10.1038/ nj7444-259a PMID: 23586092 14. Bonney R, Shirk JL, Phillips TB, Wiggins A, Ballard HL, Miller-Rushing AJ, et al. Next steps for citizen science. Science. 2014; 343(6178):1436–1437. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251554 PMID: 24675940 15. Odenwald S. A Citation Study of Citizen Science Projects in Space Science and Astronomy. Citiz Sci Theory Pract. 2018; 3(2). 16. Odenwald SF. A citation study of earth science projects in citizen science. Plos One. 2020; 15(7): e0235265. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235265 PMID: 32673329 17. Shirk JL, Bonney R. Scientific impacts and innovations of citizen science. In: Hecker S, Haklay M, Bow- ser A, Makuch Z, Vogel J, Bonn A, editors. Citizen Science: Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy. London: UCL Press; 2018. pp. 41–51 18. Brouwer S, Hessels LK. Increasing research impact with citizen science: The influence of recruitment strategies on sample diversity. Public Underst Sci. 2019; 28(5):606–621. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0963662519840934 PMID: 30995163 19. Roger E, Turak E, Tegart P. Adopting Citizen Science as a Tool to Enhance Monitoring for an Environ- ment Agency. Citiz Sci Theory Pract. 2019; 4(1). 20. Yamamoto YT. Values, objectivity and credibility of scientists in a contentious natural resource debate. Public Underst Sci Bristol Engl. 2012; 21(1):101–25. 21. Schro¨ ter M, Kraemer R, Mantel M, Kabisch N, Hecker S, Richter A, et al. Citizen science for assessing

ecosystem services: Status, challenges and opportunities. Ecosyst Serv. 2017; 28:80–94. 22. Williams J, Chapman C, Leibovici D, Loïs G, Matheus A, Oggioni A, et al. Maximising the impact and reuse of citizen science data. In: Hecker S., Haklay M., Bowser A, Makuch Z, Vogel J, Bonn A, editors. Citizen Science: Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy: Maximising the Impact and Reuse of Citizen Science Data. London: UCL Press; 2018. pp. 321–336. 23. Viola M. Evaluation of Research (ers) and its Threat to Epistemic Pluralisms. Eur J Anal Philos. 2017; 13(2):55–78. 24. Wiggins A, Bonney R, LeBuhn G, Parrish JK, Weltzin JF. A science products inventory for citizen-sci- ence planning and evaluation. BioScience. 2018; 68(6):436–444. 25. Kullenberg C, Kasperowski D. What is citizen science?–A scientometric meta-analysis. PloS One. 2016; 11(1):e0147152. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147152 PMID: 26766577 26. Mallapaty S. Data brief: Citizen science papers have more impact. Nature Index [Internet]. 2018; 23. https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/data-brief-citizen-science-papers-have-more-impact 27. Bollen J, Van de Sompel H, Hagberg A, Chute R. A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. PloS One. 2009; 4(6). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006022 PMID: 19562078 28. Price D. Statistical studies of networks of scientific papers. In: Statistical Association Methods for Mech- anized Documentation: Symposium Proceedings. US Government Printing Office; 1965. p. 187.

29. Larivière V, Kiermer V, MacCallum CJ, McNutt M, Patterson M, Pulverer B, et al. A simple proposal for the publication of journal citation distributions. BioRxiv. 2016; 062109. 30. Leimu R, Koricheva J. What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? Trends Ecol Evol. 2005; 20(1):28–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.10.010 PMID: 16701337 31. Peoples BK, Midway SR, Sackett D, Lynch A, Cooney PB. Twitter predicts citation rates of ecological research. PloS One. 2016; 11(11):e0166570. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166570 PMID: 27835703 32. Van Noorden R, Singh CD. Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database. Nature. 2019; 572(7771):578. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-02479-7 PMID: 31455906 33. Krauss J. Journal self-citation rates in ecological sciences. Scientometrics. 2007; 73(1):79–89. 34. Theobald EJ, Ettinger AK, Burgess HK, DeBey LB, Schmidt NR, Froehlich HE, et al. Global change and local solutions: Tapping the unrealized potential of citizen science for biodiversity research. Biol Con- serv. 2015; 181:236–44. 35. Tulloch AIT, Possingham HP, Joseph LN, Szabo J, Martin TG. Realising the full potential of citizen sci- ence monitoring programs. Biol Conserv. 2013; 165:128–38. 36. Tipping E, Davies JAC, Henrys PA, Kirk GJ, Lilly A, Dragosits U, et al. Long-term increases in soil car- bon due to ecosystem fertilization by atmospheric nitrogen deposition demonstrated by regional-scale modelling and observations. Sci Rep. 2017; 7(1):1–11.

37. Marchand P, Comita LS, Wright SJ, Condit R, Hubbell SP, Beckman NG. Seed-to-seedling transitions exhibit distance-dependent mortality but no strong spacing effects in a Neotropical forest. Ecology. 2020; 101(2):e02926. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2926 PMID: 31729025 PLOS ONE A citation study of a biodiversity citizen science program PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258350 October 11, 2021 12 / 13