Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41589120›Full record

ArticleOpen research Europe2025

Delineating the contours of citizen science: Development of the ECSA characteristics of citizen science.

Dilek Fraisl, Muki Haklay, Gerid Hager, Uta Wehn, Linda See, Susanne Hecker, Bastian Greshake Tzovaras, Margaret Gold, Luigi Ceccaroni, Barbara Kieslinger and 17 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open research Europe, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

27 authors.

Dilek FraislInternational Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7523-7967
Muki HaklayUniversity College London Department of Geography, London, England, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6117-3026
Gerid HagerInternational Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria.
Uta WehnIHE Delft Institute for Water Education, Delft, South Holland, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1420-9721
Linda SeeInternational Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2665-7065
Susanne HeckerMuseum für Naturkunde, Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Science, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7398-5806
Bastian Greshake TzovarasDepartment of Computational, Quantitative and Synthetic Biology, Sorbonne Université,CNRS, ERL U1338 Inserm, Paris, France.
Margaret GoldCitizen Science Lab, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4853-2463
Luigi CeccaroniEarthwatch Institute Europe, Oxford, England, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3116-0811
Barbara KieslingerCentre for Social Innovation GmbH, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0671-1917
Sasha WoodsEarthwatch Institute Europe, Oxford, England, UK.
Christian NoldThe Open University, Milton Keynes, School of Engineering & Innovation, England, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5922-8291
Bálint BalázsEnvironmental Social Science Research Group, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6937-499X
Marzia MazzonettoStickydot srl, Brussels, Belgium.
Simone RüfenachtEuropean Citizen Science Association, Berlin, Germany.
Lea A ShanleyInternational Computer Science Institute, Berkeley, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8449-4615
Alice MotionThe University of Sydney School of Chemistry, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5859-7888
Andrea SforziMaremma Natural History Museum, Grosseto, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7640-084X
Daniel DörlerBOKU University, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2056-4084
Florian HeiglBOKU University, Vienna, Austria.
Katrin VohlandNatural History Museum Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7214-7015
Katherin WagenknechtFederal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management, Berlin, Germany.
Teresa SchaeferCentre for Social Innovation GmbH, Vienna, Austria.
Dorte RiemenschneiderEuropean Citizen Science Association, Berlin, Germany.
Ariel B LindnerDepartment of Computational, Quantitative and Synthetic Biology, Sorbonne Université,CNRS, ERL U1338 Inserm, Paris, France.
Maike WeißpflugMuseum für Naturkunde, Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Science, Berlin, Germany.
Monika MačiulienėKaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Citizen science is increasingly recognized as a valuable scientific approach across disciplines, contexts, and research areas. However, its rapid expansion and diverse methodologies make it challenging to establish a single definition or universal criteria for what constitutes citizen science. Building on our previously published work that detailed findings from a vignette study used to identify the ECSA Characteristics, this paper specifically focuses on the descriptive results from that study and examines the Characteristics in relation to the ECSA 10 Principles of Citizen Science. Methods: We developed the ECSA Characteristics through a vignette study, a survey method that captures diverse perspectives on complex topics. We then reviewed the ECSA 10 Principles of Citizen Science, a broad framework for best practices in citizen science, to identify its gaps and limitations, showing how the ECSA Characteristics can help address them. Results: The results highlight the disciplinary distinctions as well as ambiguities surrounding various citizen science practices. In this context, it is beneficial to adopt an inclusive approach and language that allows the audience to define its own criteria depending on its needs, intended use and specific circumstances. Conclusions: The ECSA Characteristics were developed in a spirit of openness; identifying areas with diverse and even conflicting views was central to this practice. We recommend their use as a whole set and contend that no one area or characteristic is more important than the other. They should be considered as a toolkit with examples that can guide efforts towards defining citizen science for a specific context and purpose. They are built on the ECSA 10 Principles, addressing some of their gaps and limitations, while at the same time acknowledging the need to update and improve the 10 Principles based on developments in the field.

Indexed as

citizen sciencecitizen science terms and definitionsECSA 10 Principles of Citizen Science

Identifiers

PMID41589120
PMCPMC12831952

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.