Edits tommaso

indicator_templates/quarto/1_open_science/citizen_science.qmd

@@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ affiliations:
 | Version | Revision date | Revision    | Author       |
 |---------|---------------|-------------|--------------|
 | 1.0     | 2023-03-23    | First draft | T. Venturini |
+| 1.1     | 2024-11-14    | Revision    | T. Venturini |
+
 
 </div>
 
@@ -36,7 +38,7 @@ While there are many competing definitions of citizen science (also called parti
 
 The European Citizen Science Association ECSA [@citizen2018] published ten principles describing the citizen science approach and the first five constitute an excellent definition of this approach:
 
-1.  Citizen science projects actively involve citizens in scientific endeavour that generates new knowledge or understanding. Citizens may act as contributors, collaborators or as project leaders and have a meaningful role in the project.
+1.  Citizen science projects actively involve citizens in scientific endeavors that generate new knowledge or understanding. Citizens may act as contributors, collaborators or as project leaders and have a meaningful role in the project.
 2.  Citizen science projects have a genuine science outcome. For example, answering a research question or informing conservation action, management decisions or environmental policy.
 3.  Both the professional scientists and the citizen scientists benefit from taking part.
 4.  Citizen scientists may, if they wish, participate in multiple stages of the scientific process.
@@ -54,11 +56,18 @@ Notably principle 7 also claims that "citizen science project data and metadata
 -   the conservation and sharing of the resources generated by the project \[8. ownership\]
 -   the recognition as authors/protagonists of the research \[9. credit\]
 
-This document describes a series of metrics to quantify (but also qualify) each of these nine different forms of citizen participation in science, as well as a tenth indicator accounting for the capacity of a citizen sciences project to span across multiple forms of participation \[10. span\].
+This document describes a series of metrics to quantify (but also qualify) each of these nine different forms of citizen participation in science, as well as a tenth indicator accounting for the capacity of a citizen sciences project to span across multiple forms of participation \[10. Span\].
+
+## Open Science in European research programmes
+
+Citizen Science is possibly the most studied part of Open Science and one that has been heavily supported by the European Union in the FP7 and Horizon 2020 programs. At the time of writing (november 2024), a search for Citizen Science in the Cordis database (https://cordis.europa.eu) returns 93 programmes and 443 projects.
 
-## Existing datasources
+Beyond direct project funding, the EU also supports citizen science through organizations like the European Citizen Science Association (ECSA), which plays an important role as the hub for the scientific community using this approach [@vohland_citizen_2021]. 
+Founded in 2013 ECSA supports a network of citizen science initiatives, promoting high standards, shared methodologies, and collaboration opportunities. Its platform is centralize training material, resources, and guidelines for citizen scientists. 
 
-Data on citizen science projects can be derived from five different sources:
+In the United Kingdom a similar role has been played by the Open Air Laboratories (OPAL) since  2007. Focussing on environmental monitoring, OPAL promotes education and awareness.and has influenced national environmental policy and public awareness about air, soil, and water quality.
+
+## Existing data sources
 
 ###### Scientific project portals
 
@@ -188,7 +197,7 @@ To assess how ownership is shared among all the actors who participated to a cit
 
 ### Citizen science credit
 
-Crediting the people who have contributed to the production of science can be as important as granting them the actual ownership of the data or of the results of the research. Sometimes, crediting (in the form of signing or otherwise authoring the projects results of the project) is actually more important than ownership as the primary source of recognition and can provide a stronger form of participants motivation  (cf. Land-Zandstra et at, 2021 and Levontin et al., 2022)
+Crediting the people who have contributed to the production of science can be as important as granting them the actual ownership of the data or of the results of the research. Sometimes, crediting (in the form of signing or otherwise authoring the projects results of the project) is actually more important than ownership as the primary source of recognition and can provide a stronger form of participants motivation  (cf. [@land2021participants], [@Levontin2022])
 
 Crediting can be assessed by:
 
@@ -202,4 +211,6 @@ The metrics described above refer to specific stages of the research process, bu
 -   The most straightforward way of measuring this is by the simple count of the number of steps in which citizens have been given a chance to be active.
 -   A less binary option is to define a scale of "citizen agency/participation" for each step and then compute the average value across the whole research protocol (see for instance the model proposed by [@gharesifard2017].
 
-##
+##
+
+

references.bib

@@ -1217,6 +1217,15 @@ @article{lamers2021
   note    = {Publisher: eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd}
 }
 
+@article{land2021participants,
+  title     = {Participants in citizen science},
+  author    = {Land-Zandstra, Anne and Agnello, Gaia and G{\"u}ltekin, Ya{\c{s}}ar Selman and Vohland, K and Land-Zandstra, A and Ceccaroni, L and Lemmens, R and Perell{\'o}, J and Ponti, M and others},
+  journal   = {The science of citizen science},
+  volume    = {243},
+  year      = {2021},
+  publisher = {Springer Cham, Switzerland}
+}
+
 @article{langham-putrow2021,
   title   = {Is the open access citation advantage real? A systematic review of the citation of open access and subscription-based articles},
   author  = {Langham-Putrow, Allison and Bakker, Caitlin and Riegelman, Amy},
@@ -1318,6 +1327,20 @@ @article{lee2015
   note    = {Publisher: Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA}
 }
 
+@article{Levontin2022,
+  title   = {Standardizing the {Assessment} of {Citizen} {Scientists}’ {Motivations}: {A} {Motivational} {Goal}-{Based} {Approach}},
+  volume  = {7},
+  issn    = {2057-4991},
+  url     = {https://theoryandpractice.citizenscienceassociation.org/article/10.5334/cstp.459/},
+  doi     = {10.5334/cstp.459},
+  number  = {1},
+  journal = {Citizen Science: Theory and Practice},
+  author  = {Levontin, Liat and Gilad, Zohar and Shuster, Baillie and Chako, Shiraz and Land-Zandstra, Anne and Lavie-Alon, Nirit and Shwartz, Assaf},
+  month   = jun,
+  year    = {2022},
+  pages   = {25}
+}
+
 @article{liu2023,
   title   = {Data, measurement and empirical methods in the science of science},
   author  = {Liu, Lu and Jones, Benjamin F. and Uzzi, Brian and Wang, Dashun},
@@ -2248,6 +2271,19 @@ @book{venturini2021
   langid    = {en}
 }
 
+@incollection{vohland_citizen_2021,
+  address   = {Cham},
+  title     = {Citizen {Science} in {Europe}},
+  isbn      = {978-3-030-58277-7 978-3-030-58278-4},
+  booktitle = {The {Science} of {Citizen} {Science}},
+  publisher = {Springer International Publishing},
+  author    = {Vohland, Katrin and Göbel, Claudia and Balázs, Bálint and Butkevičienė, Eglė and Daskolia, Maria and Duží, Barbora and Hecker, Susanne and Manzoni, Marina and Schade, Sven},
+  editor    = {Vohland, Katrin and Land-Zandstra, Anne and Ceccaroni, Luigi and Lemmens, Rob and Perelló, Josep and Ponti, Marisa and Samson, Roeland and Wagenknecht, Katherin},
+  year      = {2021},
+  doi       = {10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4_3},
+  pages     = {35--53}
+}
+
 @article{waltman_field_2019,
   title   = {Field {Normalization} of {Scientometric} {Indicators}},
   doi     = {10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_11},