Category Archives: oa.citizen_science

Citizen science projects tend to attract white, affluent, well-educated volunteers ? here’s how we recruited a more diverse group to identify lead pipes in homes

Posted on by
Reply

“Recruiting participants for a citizen science project produced a more diverse group when people were signed up through partner organizations, such as schools and faith-based organizations, than when they joined on their own. We used this approach to recruit volunteers for Crowd the Tap, a citizen science initiative that crowdsources the locations of lead plumbing in homes.

We signed up 2,519 households through partner organizations, in addition to 497 households that signed up on their own. We recruited households from all 50 states, though the majority came from North Carolina. Our project was initially funded by the Environmental Protection Agency, which led to nationwide sampling, but additional funding from the North Carolina Water Resources Research Institute led to prioritizing sampling in North Carolina.

We recruited 2.2 times more Black participants and 2.3 times more Hispanic or Latino participants through partnerships than we did through individual sign-ups. This allowed us to assemble a group of volunteers that more accurately represented the U.S. population. In addition, 11.2 times more lower-income participants took part in Crowd the Tap through partner organizations than on their own….”

Open science: up for a challenge? | Research Information

Posted on by
Reply

“Do you feel, nevertheless, like Open “Science” is not for you as a book publisher in the humanities and social sciences? Wrong! While the use of Crossref DOIs as persistent identifiers for journal articles has become the industry standard, it is still relatively new territory for books and chapters. The metadata registered with most book DOIs is also significantly less rich, usually lacking abstracts and citations, thus providing less text and fewer nodes of connectivity for search engines to work with. This can result in lower discoverability for the main output types – books and chapters – of the humanities and social sciences. ScienceOpen began indexing books and chapters in 2019 and now has over two million records with validated DOIs. 

A quick search for books, however, immediately highlights how slim most of the book metadata available through Crossref is. To help smaller publishers enrich their book metadata, ScienceOpen created the free platform BookMetaHub, funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research, that can translate metadata from the XML format used for book sellers and libraries, ONIX, into a Crossref-ready format. This richer metadata can help book publishers to benefit from the advantages in discoverability.

Another way to upgrade to Open Science is to explore open and transparent peer review. Just by committing to accept manuscripts that have been posted online as a preprint, publishers can support the research community. Add this information to your journal pages and instructions or write a blog to get the word out: researchers are still sometimes unsure what counts as “previously published.”

In a next step you could agree to consider open peer reviews of preprints as part of your peer review process or to allow your reviewers to sign or post their review reports. ASAPbio offers a wealth of resources for authors and journals around preprint review. And if you decide to choose a fully open or transparent peer review model for your next journal, make sure to give reviews a DOI in the Crossref peer review XML schema to make them citable and discoverable in their own right. There are an increasing number of journals and publishers embracing some form of open review including BioMedCentral, EMBO, Copernicus, eLife, JMIR, F1000 Research, and ScienceOpen. Ross-Hellauer and Görögh (2019) provide some thoughtful guidance for getting started.

Finally, one of the main goals of Open Science is to engage the general public and raise levels of trust in science and academia. Projects range from citizen science participation, plain-language lay summaries, multilingual publishing.

Academic publishers are already engaging with Open Science and driving it forward. But there is more work to be done before a seamless flow of information connects researchers “for the benefits of science and society” and speeds up the pace of innovation to address some of the big challenges that lay before us.”

Policy Brief 1 – Fostering funding for citizen science in the social sciences and humanities (COESO D.1.4) | Zenodo

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  This policy brief addresses one of the main obstacles to the growth of citizen science in the SSH: a strong mismatch between the current funding calls and the diversity of SSH citizen science practices. Funders and funding recipients cannot exist without each other, but they do not always succeed in their effort to find each other: the recommendations presented here aim at providing solutions to better match funders and actors addressing key societal challenges through intensive citizen science practices in SSH. They build on the work carried out in the COESO project, which aims at fostering participatory research practices in the SSH.

 

Citizen science and global biodiversity – OpenLearn – Open University

Posted on by
Reply

“This free course, Citizen science and global biodiversity, deals with the importance of biodiversity and explores how anyone can contribute to and be involved in identifying and recording wildlife, as a citizen scientist. It looks at what citizen science is, and how citizen science facilitates public involvement in scientific research activities as individuals learn and build skills.

Traditional biological keys are introduced and online recording is demonstrated using citizen science techniques and practical activities using the www.iSpotnature.org platform. The course goes on to demonstrate how, once a species is identified, web resources can be used to research its ecology. The role of citizen science is illustrated through a number of case studies from across the world. Finally, the course concludes by exploring the impact citizen scientists are having on recording biodiversity around the globe….”

How Students Can Document Scientific Phenomena | Edutopia

Posted on by
Reply

“Given that technology plays a larger role in how students collect their facts about a topic, it makes sense to give them more dynamic opportunities to show what they know. One approach could be asking students to make meaningful connections between information learned in class and their “real life” surroundings. Open access to information doesn’t necessarily create more knowledgeable critical thinkers. A limitless supply and convenience of access may often lead to information overwhelm. A key starting point for science teachers is to distinguish the content that can be observed in a concrete and accessible way. 

 

A method I use to build scientific habits of mind is asking learners to document phenomena outside of the classroom with a personal photo. I challenge students to look for examples of what we’re learning in class in the outside world. Students demonstrate their understanding by creating common links between what happens in the confines of the classroom and the unpredictability of the natural world. This activity can inspire deeper analysis, classroom discussion, and broadening of student understanding of the topic….”

An invitation to a secret society – by Adam Mastroianni

Posted on by
Reply

“I hereby invite every curious human to do science and post it on the internet. 

Ask questions, collect data, write stuff, and make it available to everyone. You should feel as free to do and share research as you would feel uploading a video to YouTube or a song to Spotify.

You don’t actually need my or anyone else’s permission to do this, but sometimes people need a little encouragement, so: come on in! …”

PathOS – D1.2 Scoping Review of Open Science Impact — Graz University of Technology

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  This report details work to systematically scope evidence of the academic, societal and economic impacts of Open Science. It is guided by the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) methodological framework, and was limited to works in English since 2000 found in academic databases (Web of Science, Scopus) of peer-reviewed literature. This deliverable reports findings from the first stage of this work. Future work will extend this via snowball citation searching and web search for grey literature and will be published as three pre-prints. Through systematic screening and assessment of over 30,000 initial records, we identified 479 relevant studies (311, 155 and 13 related to academic, societal and economic impact, respectively). Our findings show that evidence of impact is concentrated around Open Access (primarily academic impact) and Citizen Science (primarily societal impact), with little evidence of impact for other Open Science aspects, and hardly any evidence of economic impact. Across types of impact, we found:

Academic impact: Open Access, especially impact as measured via citations, is most heavily studied. Evidence suggests an Open Access citation advantage; exclusion of authors from less resourced regions and institutions due to APCs; and that “predatory publishing” threatens the quality of the research literature. Open/FAIR Data are associated with data reuse and a citation advantage for associated papers, but their role in fostering (computational) reproducibility seems less significant than expected. Open Code and Software produce efficiency gains in software development, and may also increase citations of associated papers. Citizen Science increases efficiency and scope of data collection, but data quality is sometimes of issue. Open peer review shows neutral to positive effects on review quality.

Societal impact: The majority of studies relevant to societal impact concern Citizen Science, across a variety of types including educational, engagement and empowerment benefits for participants and their communities, and the creation of data for use in governmental monitoring and administering of environments and natural resources. Beyond CS, evidence is more limited. Some literature demonstrates societal impacts of OA, including public engagement with scientific literature, use in policy-making, and health-related outcomes. Beyond this, our search revealed little evidence. Especially relevant is the limited evidence (at this stage in our study) regarding the policy impact of OS (a recurrent claim in OS advocacy) and the societal impact of Open/FAIR Data.

Economic impact: Evidence here was scarce, with only 13 papers identified as relevant. Evidence was most prevalent from the biomedical and health domains. Some evidence gives positive indications of the potential of OA and Open/FAIR data to power economic activity but this is still largely without rigorous quantification. The report closes by reflecting on evidence gaps, including potential causes and solutions.

Data sharing in the context of community-engaged research partnerships – ScienceDirect

Posted on by
Reply

“Highlights

 

Data sharing policies should consider to whom benefits do and do not accrue.
Community Engaged Research Principles would increase community benefit.
Funders should develop mechanisms to ensure community benefit from data sharing.
Funders should track impact of data sharing on community-relevant outcomes….”

 

Do biodiversity monitoring citizen science surveys meet the core principles of open science practices? | SpringerLink

Posted on by
Reply

 

 

 

Citizen science (CS), as an enabler of open science (OS) practices, is a low-cost and accessible method for data collection in biodiversity monitoring, which can empower and educate the public both on scientific research priorities and on environmental change. Where OS increases research transparency and scientific democratisation; if properly implemented, CS should do the same. Here, we present the findings of a systematic review exploring “openness” of CS in biodiversity monitoring. CS projects were scored between???1 (closed) and 1 (open) on their adherence to defined OS principles: accessible data, code, software, publication, data management plans, and preregistrations. Openness scores per principle were compared to see where OS is more frequently utilised across the research process. The relationship between interest in CS and openness within the practice was also tested. Overall, CS projects had an average open score of 0.14. There was a significant difference in open scores between OS principles (p?=??<?0.0001), where “open data” was the most adhered to practice compared to the lowest scores found in relation to preregistrations. The apparent level of interest in CS was not shown to correspond to a significant increase in openness within CS (p?=?0.8464). These results reveal CS is not generally “open” despite being an OS approach, with implications for how the public can interact with the research that they play an active role in contributing to. The development of systematic recommendations on where and how OS can be implemented across the research process in citizen science projects is encouraged.

Open Science, Mental Health, and Sustainable Development: A Proposed Model for a Low-Resource Setting

Posted on by
Reply

“Mental health is an important concern in low and middle income countries and must be addressed for sustainable development. Open science is a movement which can contribute significantly towards addressing mental health challenges. Mental health in India and other low and middle income countries faces many challenges, such as lack of resources and low investment. This policy brief proposes an intervention model using the core principles of open science to transform the mental health programmes run by local self-government institutions in India. The model can co-opt key stakeholders involved in the data collection, programme implementation, and monitoring for standardisation. Kerala’s participatory development experience is employed as a case to describe the model. By empowering frontline health workers, accredited volunteers, and officials of the childcare system, and implementing open science principles, this model could help address mental health challenges with minimal resource allocation through the streamlining of the data management process. It could also encourage increased participation in open science through the citizen science model, opening scientific research to non-specialists. Open science principles such as collective benefit, equity, participation, sustainability, and inclusiveness can also be promoted.”

 

Toppling the Ivory Tower: Increasing Public Participation in Research Through Open and Citizen Science

Posted on by
Reply

“Prior to the emergence of professional researchers, amateurs without formal training primarily made contributions to science in what is known as ‘citizen science.’ Over time, science has become less accessible to the public, while at the same time public participation in research has decreased. However, recent progress in open and citizen science may be the key to strengthening the relationship between researchers and the public. Citizen science may also be key to collecting data that would otherwise be unobtainable through traditional sources, such as measuring progress on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, despite myriad benefits, there has been limited legislative action taken to promote open and citizen science policies. The underlying issues are incentive systems which overemphasize publication in high impact, for-profit journals. The suggested policy solutions include: 1) creating an open database for citizen science projects, 2) restricting publishers from disadvantaging citizen science, and 3) incorporating open science in researcher evaluation.”

RoSiE – Fostering Open Science in Europe

Posted on by
Reply

“Research Ethics and Research Integrity are also an issue in Open Science and Citizen Science. As part of their training, these topics should be taught to Doctoral Candidates at the beginning of their career. ROSiE is a three-year project funded by HORIZON2020. ROSiE project’s mission is to develop and openly share novel practical tools that ensure research ethics and research integrity in open science and citizen science. Listen to this episode of the PRIDE Podcast and find out, which tools the Rosie project has to offer for you. The 2023 PRIDE Conference is also dedicated to the subject….”

Job: Programme Leader Citizen Science / Societal Engagement (end of play: Jan 07, 2023) | NWO

Posted on by
Reply

English translation via gTranslate, original posting at: https://www.nwo.nl/vacatures/programmaleider-citizen-science/societal-engagement

Do you have a passion for Open Science? Are you that ambitious connector and director with a clear vision of how Citizen Science and Public Engagement will lead to a more open, inclusive and participatory scientific practice? Then this vacancy at NWO is for you.

Minister Dijkgraaf recently announced extra investments so that Open Science really becomes the standard in scientific research in the coming years. NWO has been asked to coordinate this by setting up a temporary Open Science directing body, following the example of other directing bodies at NWO, such as SIA and NRO. A budget of € 20 million per year is available for this for the next 10 years. The coordinating body will work closely with universities, medical centres, universities of applied sciences and service organizations such as SURF, DANS, 4TUdata and the university libraries.

Making data, publications and other research products openly available alone is not enough to realize the transition to Open Science. Citizen Science and Societal Engagement contribute to making the research process itself more open, inclusive and participatory by involving social partners, including citizens. As a Citizen Science / Societal Engagement program leader, you have an important role in realizing that more open, inclusive and participatory scientific practice in which citizens and social parties are also part of the scientific process. You are the connector, director and inspirer in this area. You have a clear vision of the importance and needs of Citizen Science and Societal Engagement. You are the pivot in the web of the Dutch community or you can demonstrate that you can quickly acquire that position. You organize meetings and contribute to the development of policy and subsidy instruments so that Citizen Science and Societal Engagement become even more firmly anchored in the Dutch research landscape in the coming years.  

 

In practice it means that you:

are responsible for the development of a Citizen Science / Societal Engagement program line along the lines of the ambitions formulated in the NPOS;
together with your colleagues, translate these ambitions into funding instruments and organize them in such a way that applicants (institutions and researchers) are challenged to make innovative proposals;
acts as community manager of the wider community in the field of Citizen Science / Societal Engagement, contributes to activities to connect parties and stimulate cooperation, eg by organizing meetings or workshops;
closely monitors developments in the field of Citizen Science / Societal Engagement, identifies new developments and places them on the agenda;
act as secretary in the project proposal review process;
are responsible for the further development, implementation and evaluation of NWO policy in the field of Citizen Science / Societal Engagement in line with the strategic principles of NWO, and ensure coordination within NWO;
builds and maintains a relevant (inter)national network with organizations in this field.

You bring this

demonstrable experience and affinity with the broader Open Science agenda and a real drive to make Open Science the norm;
several years of work experience in the implementation and development of science policy, preferably in the field of Citizen Science / Societal Engagement;
an infectious enthusiasm for the potential of Citizen Science / Societal Engagement to make the scientific process more open, inclusive and participatory;
a convincing vision of the position of Citizen Science / Societal Engagement within the broader Open Science agenda and what is needed to promote that development in the Netherlands;
excellently able to organize, inspire and enthuse the community;
attention to and insight into (in)formal relationships, positions and interests within and outside NWO and the capacity to respond adequately to these;
an independent work attitude in which you also function well in a team, with a sense of proportion;
good communication skills, both orally and in writing in Dutch and English;
experience in maintaining contacts and cooperation in science and with representative national organizations such as UNL, NFU, SURF, KNAW; 
knowledge of grant processes at NWO or other financiers or the willingness to develop them;
a completed academic education.

You recognize yourself in the core values ??of NWO: involved, reliable, connecting and groundbreaking. 

This is where you come to work

The Open Science governing body is in the starting blocks and currently consists of a quartermaster/director and 2 policy officers. In the coming year, th

CeOS_SE – Citizen-Enhanced Open Science in Southeastern Europe Higher Education Knowledge Hubs

Posted on by
Reply

“Citizen-Enhanced Open Science in Southeastern Europe Higher Education Knowledge Hubs — is a project funded by the European Union’s Erasmus+ Programme under Cooperation Partnerships in Higher Education.

The CeOS_SE project aims to raise awareness of mainstream Open Science (OS) and Citizen Science (CS) practices in Southeastern European countries specifically in countries that have been seen to perform less well in OS or CS, or where there is limited awareness of or involvement in major developments related to the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC)….”