On the state of reporting in crowdsourcing experiments and a checklist to aid current practices
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Crowdsourcing is being increasingly adopted as a platform to run studies with human subjects. Running a crowdsourcing experiment involves several choices and strategies to successfully port an experimental design into an otherwise uncontrolled research environment, e.g., sampling crowd workers, mapping experimental conditions to micro-tasks, or ensure quality contributions. While several guidelines inform researchers in these choices, guidance of how and what to report from crowdsourcing experiments has been largely overlooked. If under-reported, implementation choices constitute variability sources that can affect the experiment's reproducibility and prevent a fair assessment of research outcomes. In this paper, we examine the current state of reporting of crowdsourcing experiments and offer guidance to address associated reporting issues. We start by identifying sensible implementation choices, relying on existing literature and interviews with experts, to then extensively analyze the reporting of 171 crowdsourcing experiments. Informed by this process, we propose a checklist for reporting crowdsourcing experiments.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 28 Jul 2021.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 2; 2023: 1; 2024: 1; 2025: 0; 2026: 2.
6 papers.
- 2022CrowdWorkSheets: Accounting for Individual and Collective Identities Underlying Crowdsourced Dataset Annotationcited by 59
- 2024If in a Crowdsourced Data Annotation Pipeline, a GPT-4cited by 38
- 2023Collect, Measure, Repeat: Reliability Factors for Responsible AI Data Collectioncited by 5
- 2022WDV: A Broad Data Verbalisation Dataset Built from Wikidatacited by 4
- 2026Incentive-Tuning: Understanding and Designing Incentives for Empirical Human-AI Decision-Making Studiescited by 2
- 2026The Consensus Trap: Dissecting Subjectivity and the "Ground Truth" Illusion in Data Annotationcited by 1
- 2026The Consensus Trap: Dissecting Subjectivity and the "Ground Truth" Illusion in Data Annotation11 Feb 2026
- 2026Incentive-Tuning: Understanding and Designing Incentives for Empirical Human-AI Decision-Making Studies21 Jan 2026
- 2024If in a Crowdsourced Data Annotation Pipeline, a GPT-426 Feb 2024
- 2023Collect, Measure, Repeat: Reliability Factors for Responsible AI Data Collection22 Aug 2023
- 2022CrowdWorkSheets: Accounting for Individual and Collective Identities Underlying Crowdsourced Dataset Annotation9 Jun 2022
- 2022WDV: A Broad Data Verbalisation Dataset Built from Wikidata5 May 2022