{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018852459016393444, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.898305084745763, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Monitoring the SDGs: Digital and social technologies to ensure citizen participation, inclusiveness and transparency

Motivation The article shows that the measurement of SDG attainment remains vague and incomplete and argues that participation‐based and inclusive monitoring must be an integral part of managing the SDG implementation process. Purpose Countries are supposed to review their progress of SDG implementation every four years, but the method of reviewing is left open. In addition, and even more urgent is the need to improve on the inadequate definition of monitoring methods that countries are supposed to deploy. Approach and methods The article reviews the various options currently available to conduct the four‐year review and the methods of on‐going SDG monitoring. Findings The analysis shows that the SDG monitoring methods have not yet been defined, leaving stakeholders (governments, business and civil society) without appropriate guidance. Policy implications The authors propose two types of monitoring: micro‐monitoring and macro‐monitoring, both of which are necessary to ensure effective and efficient monitoring in achieving process accountability, institutional learning, and innovation.