Using crowdsourcing to evaluate published scientific literature: methods and example.

Systematically evaluating scientific literature is a time consuming endeavor that requires hours of coding and rating. Here, we describe a method to distribute these tasks across a large group through online crowdsourcing. Using Amazon's Mechanical Turk, crowdsourced workers (microworkers) comp...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Andrew W Brown, David B Allison
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2014-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4079692?pdf=render
id doaj-9ea90bb778ba4eadaf295e1790d01457
record_format Article
spelling doaj-9ea90bb778ba4eadaf295e1790d014572020-11-24T20:50:41ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032014-01-0197e10064710.1371/journal.pone.0100647Using crowdsourcing to evaluate published scientific literature: methods and example.Andrew W BrownDavid B AllisonSystematically evaluating scientific literature is a time consuming endeavor that requires hours of coding and rating. Here, we describe a method to distribute these tasks across a large group through online crowdsourcing. Using Amazon's Mechanical Turk, crowdsourced workers (microworkers) completed four groups of tasks to evaluate the question, "Do nutrition-obesity studies with conclusions concordant with popular opinion receive more attention in the scientific community than do those that are discordant?" 1) Microworkers who passed a qualification test (19% passed) evaluated abstracts to determine if they were about human studies investigating nutrition and obesity. Agreement between the first two raters' conclusions was moderate (κ = 0.586), with consensus being reached in 96% of abstracts. 2) Microworkers iteratively synthesized free-text answers describing the studied foods into one coherent term. Approximately 84% of foods were agreed upon, with only 4 and 8% of ratings failing manual review in different steps. 3) Microworkers were asked to rate the perceived obesogenicity of the synthesized food terms. Over 99% of responses were complete and usable, and opinions of the microworkers qualitatively matched the authors' expert expectations (e.g., sugar-sweetened beverages were thought to cause obesity and fruits and vegetables were thought to prevent obesity). 4) Microworkers extracted citation counts for each paper through Google Scholar. Microworkers reached consensus or unanimous agreement for all successful searches. To answer the example question, data were aggregated and analyzed, and showed no significant association between popular opinion and attention the paper received as measured by Scimago Journal Rank and citation counts. Direct microworker costs totaled $221.75, (estimated cost at minimum wage: $312.61). We discuss important points to consider to ensure good quality control and appropriate pay for microworkers. With good reliability and low cost, crowdsourcing has potential to evaluate published literature in a cost-effective, quick, and reliable manner using existing, easily accessible resources.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4079692?pdf=render
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Andrew W Brown
David B Allison
spellingShingle Andrew W Brown
David B Allison
Using crowdsourcing to evaluate published scientific literature: methods and example.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Andrew W Brown
David B Allison
author_sort Andrew W Brown
title Using crowdsourcing to evaluate published scientific literature: methods and example.
title_short Using crowdsourcing to evaluate published scientific literature: methods and example.
title_full Using crowdsourcing to evaluate published scientific literature: methods and example.
title_fullStr Using crowdsourcing to evaluate published scientific literature: methods and example.
title_full_unstemmed Using crowdsourcing to evaluate published scientific literature: methods and example.
title_sort using crowdsourcing to evaluate published scientific literature: methods and example.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2014-01-01
description Systematically evaluating scientific literature is a time consuming endeavor that requires hours of coding and rating. Here, we describe a method to distribute these tasks across a large group through online crowdsourcing. Using Amazon's Mechanical Turk, crowdsourced workers (microworkers) completed four groups of tasks to evaluate the question, "Do nutrition-obesity studies with conclusions concordant with popular opinion receive more attention in the scientific community than do those that are discordant?" 1) Microworkers who passed a qualification test (19% passed) evaluated abstracts to determine if they were about human studies investigating nutrition and obesity. Agreement between the first two raters' conclusions was moderate (κ = 0.586), with consensus being reached in 96% of abstracts. 2) Microworkers iteratively synthesized free-text answers describing the studied foods into one coherent term. Approximately 84% of foods were agreed upon, with only 4 and 8% of ratings failing manual review in different steps. 3) Microworkers were asked to rate the perceived obesogenicity of the synthesized food terms. Over 99% of responses were complete and usable, and opinions of the microworkers qualitatively matched the authors' expert expectations (e.g., sugar-sweetened beverages were thought to cause obesity and fruits and vegetables were thought to prevent obesity). 4) Microworkers extracted citation counts for each paper through Google Scholar. Microworkers reached consensus or unanimous agreement for all successful searches. To answer the example question, data were aggregated and analyzed, and showed no significant association between popular opinion and attention the paper received as measured by Scimago Journal Rank and citation counts. Direct microworker costs totaled $221.75, (estimated cost at minimum wage: $312.61). We discuss important points to consider to ensure good quality control and appropriate pay for microworkers. With good reliability and low cost, crowdsourcing has potential to evaluate published literature in a cost-effective, quick, and reliable manner using existing, easily accessible resources.
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4079692?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT andrewwbrown usingcrowdsourcingtoevaluatepublishedscientificliteraturemethodsandexample
AT davidballison usingcrowdsourcingtoevaluatepublishedscientificliteraturemethodsandexample
_version_ 1716803827206717440