So let me start with two clarifications:
I am not a co-author in any of the listed articles.
I made a small contribution (i.e., I spent between 0.5 and 5 hours) by either replicating a study or responding to a prediction survey, and therefore I appear as a member of a collaboration consortium.
I consider crowd-sourced research projects (C-SRP) one of the most practical and inclusive forms of making open science. These projects help build a better-connected research community, which is particularly important in Latin America (where research funds tend to be scarce, and bureaucratic processes can convince you not to try too hard to get them).
C-SRPs are also opportunities to actively learn a bit about domains in the behavioral sciences that are probably not very close to yours (if these projects are still not that popular, what are the odds that they are close enough to your very tailored interests?), so they also foster some intellectual curiosity and humility.
Finally, as C-SRPs are still incipient, some incentives probably need to be adjusted. Nonetheless, they already have a key incentive right: the reward (in terms of credit in the publication) is proportional to the contribution. Here is where we need some norms of how to value contributions to C-SRPs in the behavioral sciences such that they remain attractive. Equally important, we also need to be aware of those claiming credits for their contribution in more than a proportional manner.
So this is the list of C-SRPs I contributed to and are published:
Fišar, M., Greiner, B., Huber, C., Katok, E., Ozkes, A. I., & Management Science Reproducibility Collaboration. (2024). Reproducibility in Management Science. Management Science, 70(3), 1343-1356.