[Purpose/significance] This paper tersely summarizes the development status of the research crowdfunding model, uses the Experiment platform as the research object, and designs indicators to analyze the basic features of the projects, the impact of the project outputs and the content characteristics. This study can develop the research crowdfunding model, help to understand the new research activities in an open science environment and provide relevant suggestions for project applicants and funders.[Method/process] Firstly, the paper gets data from the research crowdfunding website "Experiment" and designs a series of indicators to evaluate them. Secondly, this paper analyzes the overall scale, success rate, staff scale, research cycle, countries, organizations, funding levels and other features of research crowdfunding projects. In addition, the paper focuses on the lab notes, which are the outputs of research crowdfunding projects, analyzing the numbers of lab note, view, like and comment based on the disciplinary characteristics so that it can reveal the scale and impact of these outputs.[Result/conclusion] Finally, the result shows that the research crowdfunding projects of "Experiment" are characterized by small-scale, short accomplishing time and strong participation, meanwhile, the scale and impact of projects' outputs in biology and ecology are more prominent than other disciplines.
Chen Liyue
,
Ding Jielan
,
Liu Xiwen
. Exploring the Features and Impact of Research Crowdfunding Projects: A Case Study of Experiment[J]. Library and Information Service, 2019
, 63(2)
: 120
-131
.
DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2019.02.014
[1] BARTLING S, FRIESIKE S. Towards another scientific revolution[M]. Cham:Springer, 2014:3-15.
[2] SILVERTOWN J. A new dawn for citizen science[J]. Trends in ecology & evolution, 2009, 24(9):467.
[3] 张九庆. 科研众包对中国科研活动的影响[J]. 中国科技论坛, 2015(3):1.
[4] 庞建刚, 刘志迎. 科研众包参与主体及流程的特殊性[J]. 中国科技论坛, 2015(12):16-21.
[5] FRANZONI C, SAUERMANN H. Crowd science:the organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects[J]. Research policy, 2014, 43(1):1-20.
[6] GILES J. Finding philanthropy:Like it? pay for it[J]. Nature, 2012, 481(7381):252-253.
[7] 张绍丽, 郑晓齐. 众包、众筹、众创——高校科研模式创新研究[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2016, 33(6):20-25.
[8] 刘钒, 甘义祥, 李光. 科研众筹模式分析及发展对策研究[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2015(21):8-12.
[9] 郭丽环, 王伟, 李春鹏. 基于Web的科研众筹模式实证分析研究[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2015(13):13-19.
[10] 张九庆. 科研众筹对中国科研活动的影响[J]. 中国科技论坛, 2015(4):1.
[11] 尹振涛, 阎沭杉. 利用众筹模式拓宽科研经费的筹集渠道[J]. 科学管理研究, 2015(6):101-104.
[12] LEDFORD H. Alternative funding:sponsor my science[J]. Nature, 2012, 481(7381):254-255.
[13] WOUTERS P, THELWALL M, KOUSHA K,et al. The metric tide:literature review[M].London:HEFCE,2015:101-107.
[14] LIN J, FENNER M. Altmetrics in evolution:defining and redefining the ontology of article-level metrics[J]. Information standards quarterly, 2013, 25(2):20-26.
[15] THELWALL M, TSOU A, WEINGART S, et al. Tweeting links to academic articles[J]. Cybermetrics:International journal of scientometrics, informetrics and bibliometrics, 2013,17(17):1-8.
[16] HAUSTEIN S, PETERS I, SUGIMOTO C R, et al. Tweeting biomedicine:an analysis of Tweets and citations in the biomedical literature[J]. Journal of the association for information science and technology, 2014, 65(4):656-669.
[17] HAUSTEIN S, BOWMAN T D, COSTAS R. Interpreting "altmetrics":viewing acts on social media through the lens of citation and social theories[EB/OL].[2017-12-14].https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.05701.
[18] EISFELD J, HERB U, WENZLAFF K. Research funding in open science[M]. Cham:Springer, 2014:237-253.
