2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.ipm.2018.03.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Understanding crowdsourcing projects: A systematic review of tendencies, workflow, and quality management

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 67 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The crowdsourcing literature has grown over the years, with a number of reviews aiming to systematically and critically analyse it from different vantage points. For example, the review by (Assis Neto and Santos, 2018) focussed on the quality and workflow control aspects, while the work by (Estell es-Arolas et al, 2015) suggested a typology. The review by (Hossain and Kauranen, 2015) primarily focussed on the applications and the work by (Ghezzi et al, 2018) approached crowdsourcing as a process.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The crowdsourcing literature has grown over the years, with a number of reviews aiming to systematically and critically analyse it from different vantage points. For example, the review by (Assis Neto and Santos, 2018) focussed on the quality and workflow control aspects, while the work by (Estell es-Arolas et al, 2015) suggested a typology. The review by (Hossain and Kauranen, 2015) primarily focussed on the applications and the work by (Ghezzi et al, 2018) approached crowdsourcing as a process.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite reviews covering a range of topics in this area, their coverage of crowdsourcing skills has been relatively scarce. Crowdfunding in previous reviews of crowdsourcing has either been presented exclusively as a category of crowdsourcing that is used to crowdsource financial value (Assis Neto and Santos, 2018;Estell es-Arolas et al, 2015) or it has been completely excluded, which is also self-declared as a limitation (Ghezzi et al, 2018;Hossain and Kauranen, 2015). It is broadly agreed that crowdfunding is more than an alternative form of finance, as it offers additional value to the different stakeholders (Alfiero et al, 2014;Gleasure and Feller, 2016;Mollick and Robb, 2016;Short et al, 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Effectively managing crowdsourcing has proven difficult for several reasons. First, a crowdsourcing project depends on several interrelated variables such as crowd composition, incentives, task performance and the product that is generated at the end of the project (Neto & Santos, 2018). Second, crowdsourcing needs a strong combination of technological, motivational and managerial capabilities.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With previous research studies on data management in large research institutions (Corrall, Kennan, & Afzal, 2013;Cox, Kennan, Lyon, & Pinfield, 2017;Crowston, Qin, 2011;Sturm, Luna, Albert, Schade, & Kasperowski, 2017;Zhang, & Chen, 2015), different studies of data management projects have been carried out by Alba and Francisco Chicano (2007), Assis Neto and Santos (2018), Crall, Newman, Jarnevich, Stohlgren, Waller, and Graham, (2010), Rüegg et al (2014), Sakka, Barki, and Côté (2013), Tsinaraki C. (2016), Shamim, Zeng, Shariq, andKhan (2019), Shin (2002), Wang, Cavusoglu, andDeng (2016), andAbu-Elkheir, Hayajneh, andAli (2013).…”
Section: Citizen Science and Data Managementmentioning
confidence: 99%