ArticleOpen research Europe2025
Force majeure impact on citizen science: Perspective from an EU funded project.
Article in Open research Europe, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Management of citizen science engagement during a force majeure needs very careful consideration in order not to lose precious time. This paper serves as a guide for pro-action in the event of another virus-enforced stay-at-home, movement-control order and presents necessary changes undertaken by an international collaboration during a once-in-a-hundred years' pandemic that reduced face-to-face public interactions. Overcoming challenges imposed under force majeure conditions, a citizen science project funded under the EU Horizon2020 research and innovation scheme SwafS15-2019, rethought experiential learning through volunteering screen time. Methods: Mitigation measures, to limit the handicap of moving to online working reducing potential for learning through synchronous live engagement, included creation of an interactive multilingual informal five-step learning resource (CSI-COP MOOC: 'Your Right to Privacy Online'), adapting Greenpeace's 'Big Plastic Count' to an online 'Big Cookie Count' event, as well as webinars organised by project partners in their local language, Newsletters, provided opportunities for the general public to gain vital knowledge about protecting personal data and preserving online privacy. Results: Over one-hundred and ninety members of the public who completed CSI-COP's MOOC with a certificate, participated in one-to-one online 'walk through' training sessions in local languages joined the project, through GDPR-compliant written informed consent, as citizen scientists. The acquisition of practical skills by these individuals enabled investigations of websites they visited and apps they used to record third-party cookies or third-party requests for personal data. Conclusions: The effective reorganisation of CSI-COP activities to online, then hybrid once COVID-19 restrictions were lifted, ensured the expected deliverables were produced. Citizen scientists' contributions realised a searchable Repository of investigated websites and apps, a Taxonomy of tracking cookies, two policy briefs on improving monitoring of GDPR compliance, and Guidelines to address the 'legitimate interest' principle used by third parties to gather personal data online.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.