@article{HaklayFraislGreshakeTzovarasetal.2021, author = {Haklay, Muki and Fraisl, Dilek and Greshake Tzovaras, Bastian and Hecker, Susanne and Gold, Margaret and Hager, Gerid and Ceccaroni, Luigi and Kieslinger, Barbara and Wehn, Uta and Woods, Sasha and Nold, Christian and Bal{\´a}zs, B{\´a}lint and Mazzonetto, Marzia and R{\"u}fenacht, Simone and Shanley, Lea A. and Wagenknecht, Katherin and Motion, Alice and Sforzi, Andrea and Riemenschneider, Dorte and Dorler, Daniel and Heigl, Florian and Schaefer, Teresa and Lindner, Ariel and Weißpflug, Maike and Mačiulienė, Monika and Vohland, Katrin}, title = {Contours of citizen science: a vignette study}, series = {Royal Society Open Science}, volume = {8}, journal = {Royal Society Open Science}, number = {8}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:526-opus4-14781}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Citizen science has expanded rapidly over the past decades. Yet, defining citizen science and its boundaries remained a challenge, and this is reflected in the literature—for example in the proliferation of typologies and definitions. There is a need for identifying areas of agreement and disagreement within the citizen science practitioners community on what should be considered as citizen science activity. This paper describes the development and results of a survey that examined this issue, through the use of vignettes—short case descriptions that describe an activity, while asking the respondents to rate the activity on a scale from 'not citizen science' (0\%) to 'citizen science' (100\%). The survey included 50 vignettes, of which five were developed as clear cases of not-citizen science activities, five as widely accepted citizen science activities and the others addressing 10 factors and 61 sub-factors that can lead to controversy about an activity. The survey has attracted 333 respondents, who provided over 5100 ratings. The analysis demonstrates the plurality of understanding of what citizen science is and calls for an open understanding of what activities are included in the field.}, language = {en} } @article{WagenknechtWoodsGarciaSanzetal.2021, author = {Wagenknecht, Katherin and Woods, Tim and Garc{\´i}a Sanz, Francisco and Gold, Margaret and Bowser, Anne and R{\"u}fenacht, Simone and Ceccaroni, Luigi and Piera, Jaume}, title = {EU-Citizen.Science: A Platform for Mainstreaming Citizen Science and Open Science in Europe}, series = {Data Intelligence}, volume = {3}, journal = {Data Intelligence}, number = {1}, issn = {2641-435X}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:526-opus4-14113}, pages = {136 -- 149}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Citizen Science (CS) is a prominent field of application for Open Science (OS), and the two have strong synergies, such as: advocating for the data and metadata generated through science to be made publicly available [1]; supporting more equitable collaboration between different types of scientists and citizens; and facilitating knowledge transfer to a wider range of audiences [2]. While primarily targeted at CS, the EU-Citizen. Science platform can also support OS. One of its key functions is to act as a knowledge hub to aggregate, disseminate and promote experience and know-how; for example, by profiling CS projects and collecting tools, resources and training materials relevant to both fields. To do this, the platform has developed an information architecture that incorporates the public participation in scientific research (PPSR)—Common Conceptual Model①. This model consists of the Project Metadata Model, the Dataset Metadata Model and the Observation Data Model, which were specifically developed for CS initiatives. By implementing these, the platform will strengthen the interoperating arrangements that exist between other, similar platforms (e.g., BioCollect and SciStarter) to ensure that CS and OS continue to grow globally in terms of participants, impact and fields of application.}, language = {en} }