scholarly journals Quality criteria catalogue for citizen science projects on Österreich forscht – Questionnaire for project managers

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florian Heigl ◽  
Daniel Dörler ◽  
Pamela Bartar ◽  
Robert Brodschneider ◽  
Marika Cieslinski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Citizen Science ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Project Managers ◽  
Science Projects ◽  
Criteria Catalogue ◽  
Project Participants ◽  
Open Dialogue ◽  
One Year

In the course of one year the working group for quality criteria of the Citizen Science Network Austria developed a catalogue of criteria for citizen science projectson the platform Österreich forscht. From this catalogue questions were generated, which should help the project leaders of projects in Austria to fulfil the criteria. By answering the questions, important topics are addressed during the implementation of a project and can thus also be considered by the project management. On the other hand, the answers help potential project participants to make an informed decision about participation on the basis of the information presented.Project leaders receive this catalogue of questions and send the answers back to Österreich forscht. The platform coordinators read the answers, consult with the Working Group for Quality Criteria if necessary and contact the project leaders in case of ambiguities for clarification and possible assistance. The aim of this processis not to exclude individual projects, but to jointly ensure the quality of the citizen science characteristics of the projects and eventually even increase them. An open dialogue and exchange and a respectful interaction between all participants is the prerequisite for this.

scholarly journals Quality Criteria for Citizen Science Projects on Österreich forscht | Version 1.1

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florian Heigl ◽  
Daniel Dörler ◽  
Pamela Bartar ◽  
Robert Brodschneider ◽  
Marika Cieslinski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Citizen Science ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Research Fields ◽  
Online Consultation ◽  
Science Projects ◽  
Multi Stage ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Citizen Science Project

The platform Österreich forscht (www.citizen-science.at) was founded in 2014 with the objectives of (1) connecting citizen science actors in Austria, (2) providing the broadest possible overview of citizen science projects in Austria, and (3) scientifically advancing citizen science as a method.Following the initiative of the platform Österreich forscht, many of the institutions that are active in citizen science joined forces in the Citizen Science Network Austria in 2017, and thus agreed to advance the quality of citizen science in Austria (http://www.citizen-science.at/the-platform/the-network).An important step in this regard was the establishment of transparent criteria for projects wishing to be listed on the platform Österreich forscht. The objective of these criteria is to maintain and further improve the quality of the projects presented on the platform.Between March 2017 and February 2018, a working group of the platform Österreich forscht consisting of representatives from 17 institutions developed criteria that allow for the transparent evaluation of projects applying to be listed on Österreich forscht. This was a multi-stage process, building both on the knowledge of the working group members as well as on feedback repeatedly provided by external experts from the respective research fields. Throughout October 2017, a version of the quality criteria was available for public online consultation on the platform Österreich forscht, so as to incorporate the knowledge of the general public into the criteria as well.The final version of the quality criteria was presented at the 4th Austrian Citizen Science Conference, 1-3 February 2018, at which point the criteria also came into effect. Projects already listed on Österreich forscht can adapt to meet the criteria over the next year. Projects wishing to be newly listed on Österreich forscht must meet these criteria at the point of listing.Where necessary, the quality criteria will be adapted in the future, in order to respond to new challenges and developments. The version number, i.e. which version of the criteria a project corresponds to, will be indicated on the respective project page.The first part of the criteria is primarily aimed at establishing what defines a citizen science project. Here, we decided on a negative list (i.e. projects that are NOT citizen science), in order to be as open as possible to different concepts and disciplines. This implies that we call all projects citizen science, which are not excluded by this negative list. The professional background of the person leading the project is not crucial as long as the criteria are complied by the project.The criteria in the second part are to be understood as minimum standards which all projects listed on the platform Österreich forscht must fulfill.The evaluation will be carried out by the coordinators of the platform Österreich forscht in consultation with working group members.Version 1.0 of the quality criteria can be found on the platform Zenodo: https://zenodo.org/record/1161953

scholarly journals Citizen Science Network Austria Working Group on Open Biodiversity Databases in Citizen Science Projects: Catalogue of Questions for Project Managers

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florian Heigl ◽  
Daniel Dörler ◽  
Theresa Walter ◽  
Linde Morawetz
Keyword(s):  
Citizen Science ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Publishing Research ◽  
Project Managers ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Research Results ◽  
Science Projects ◽  
Biodiversity Databases

As part of the Citizen Science Network Austria (https://www.citizen-science.at/netzwerk), the working group Open Biodiversity Databases in Citizen Science Projects was established in February 2018. The objectives of this working group are (I) to formulate a catalogue of questions to help deciding about open publishing of research data collected in a citizen science biodiversity project, (II) to accompany and document the process of open publishing of research data from a concrete project and (III) to write and publish a so-called data paper in addition to publishing research results. This document is the product of point (I) of the objectives, the questionnaire.

Birding, Citizen Science, and Wildlife Conservation in Sociological Perspective

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Cherry
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Citizen Science ◽  
Wildlife Conservation ◽  
Sociological Research ◽  
Sociological Perspective ◽  
Quality Of Data ◽  
Science Projects ◽  
Nonhuman Animals ◽  
In The Wild

Abstract Sociological research on wildlife typically looks at how nonhuman animals in the wild are hunted, poached, or captured for entertainment, or how they play a symbolic role in people’s lives. Within sociology, little research exists on how people appreciate nonhuman animals in the wild, and how people contribute to wildlife conservation. I explore birding-related citizen science projects in the US. Citizen science refers to scientific projects carried out by amateurs. Literature on citizen science focuses on the perspective of professional scientists, with the assumption that only professional scientists are concerned with the quality of data from citizen science projects. The research showed birders share this skepticism, but they still find satisfaction in participating in citizen science projects. This paper contributes to sociological understandings of wildlife conservation by showing how birders’ participation in citizen science projects helps professional scientists study environmental problems such as climate change and its effects on wildlife.

scholarly journals Getting it Right or Being Top Rank: Games in Citizen Science

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marisa Ponti ◽  
Thomas Hillman ◽  
Dick Kasperowski ◽  
Christopher Kullenberg
Keyword(s):  
Citizen Science ◽  
Thematic Analysis ◽  
Design Feature ◽  
Ethnographic Study ◽  
Discussion Forum ◽  
The Public ◽  
Science Projects ◽  
One Year ◽  
Public Forums

The use of games in citizen science is growing, but can create tension as gaming and science can be seen as incompatible areas of activity. For example, the motivations for winning a game and scientific pursuit of knowledge may be seen as contrary. Over a one-year period, we conducted a virtual ethnographic study of the public forums of two online citizen science projects, Foldit and Galazy Zoo. The first where gaming is an explicit design feature and the second where it is not. The aim was to give a nuanced view of how participants topicalize and respond to tensions between gaming and science. Thematic analysis of discussion forum posts suggests that participants in the two projects respond differently to the tension. By unpacking participant responses to the tension between games and science, our study highlights that citizen science projects using games are not just about fun. To enrol and retain volunteers, our findings suggest that they must also recognize and manage the implicit normative scientific ideals that participants bring with them to a project.

scholarly journals Panorama dos principais estudos sobre ciência cidadã

ForScience ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. e01030
Author(s):  
Diny Gabrielly de Miranda Martins ◽  
Eloisa Helena de Souza Cabral
Keyword(s):  
Citizen Science ◽  
Learning Process ◽  
Theoretical Basis ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Theoretical Concepts ◽  
Science Projects ◽  
Minimum Number ◽  
Teaching Learning ◽  
Made In

Neste artigo, são analisados os objetos de estudo das principais pesquisas sobre ciência cidadã publicadas nos últimos cinco anos. Realizou-se uma busca na base de dados internacional Web of Science por artigos científicos publicados nos anos de 2016 a 2020 e com um número mínimo de 40 citações. Foram encontrados 31 artigos científicos internacionais que tratam de conceitos teóricos, aplicações e contribuições da Ciência Cidadã, abordam implicações éticas e sociais no recrutamento dos voluntários e a motivação desses cidadãos não cientistas para participarem de projetos de Ciência Cidadã e, ainda, avaliam a qualidade dos dados coletados. A pesquisa realizada pode contribuir para a academia, servir de base teórica para o tema da Ciência Cidadã e ser motivante para que os docentes conheçam e se utilizem de iniciativas nos diversos campos do conhecimento como abordagem no processo de ensino e aprendizagem. Palavras-chave: Ciência cidadã. Participação. Não cientistas.   Overview of main studies on citizen science Abstract This article analyzes the objects of study of the main researches on citizen science published in the last five years. A search was made in the international Web of Science database for scientific articles published in the years 2016 to 2020 and with a minimum number of 40 citations. Thirty-one international scientific articles were obtained that deal with the theoretical concepts, applications and contributions of citizen science. They also address the ethical and social implications of recruiting volunteers and the motivation of these non-scientist citizens to participate in citizen science projects, and also assess the quality of the data collected. The research carried out can contribute to the academy, serving as a theoretical basis on the theme of citizen science and be motivating for teachers to know and use citizen science initiatives in different fields of knowledge as an approach in the teaching-learning process. Keywords: Citizen Science. Participation. Non-scientist.

Process Potential Screening

2006 ◽  
Vol 45 (05) ◽  
pp. 506-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Ammenwerth ◽  
R. Haux ◽  
F. Ehlers
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Project Managers ◽  
Axis Ii ◽  
Or Groups ◽  
Quality Aspects ◽  
Axis I ◽  
Business Informatics ◽  
And Control

Summary Objectives: Hospitals are increasingly under pressure to optimize their processes. So far, an instrument to systematically identify the potentials for improvement of a given business process is missing. The aim of this project is to develop such an instrument. Methods: Initially, central aspects of the quality of a hospital process were identified on the basis of a systematic literature review. Secondary to that, criteria to measure quality aspects were defined: More than 300 criteria from medical and business informatics, economics and quality management publications were gathered and systematically aggregated. Results: As a result, the Process Potential Screening (PPS) instrument was developed. The PPS is a matrix containing two axes: Axis I comprises 30 quality aspects referring to results, execution and control of hospital processes. Axis II comprises 16 quality criteria (e.g., customer satisfaction, time). The PPS displays approximately 400 relevant combinations of those quality aspects and quality criteria that help to identify potentials for improvement of a given hospital process. It utilizes different methods for the measurement of the criteria and for application by way of individuals or groups. Conclusions: In using the PPS, relevant potentials for improvement were identified in ten typical hospital processes. The instrument’s practicability must now be examined in further studies by the final target group (e.g., quality or project managers, and the staff responsible for processes).

scholarly journals In search of an evidence-based strategy for quality assessment of human tissue samples: report of the tissue Biospecimen Research Working Group of the Spanish Biobank Network

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Margalida Esteva-Socias ◽  
María-Jesús Artiga ◽  
Olga Bahamonde ◽  
Oihana Belar ◽  
Raquel Bermudo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Human Tissue ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Tissue Sample ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Analytical Techniques ◽  
Sample Collection ◽  
Tissue Samples ◽  
The Impact

Abstract The purpose of the present work is to underline the importance of obtaining a standardized procedure to ensure and evaluate both clinical and research usability of human tissue samples. The study, which was carried out by the Biospecimen Science Working Group of the Spanish Biobank Network, is based on a general overview of the current situation about quality assurance in human tissue biospecimens. It was conducted an exhaustive review of the analytical techniques used to evaluate the quality of human tissue samples over the past 30 years, as well as their reference values if they were published, and classified them according to the biomolecules evaluated: (i) DNA, (ii) RNA, and (iii) soluble or/and fixed proteins for immunochemistry. More than 130 publications released between 1989 and 2019 were analysed, most of them reporting results focused on the analysis of tumour and biopsy samples. A quality assessment proposal with an algorithm has been developed for both frozen tissue samples and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples, according to the expected quality of sample based on the available pre-analytical information and the experience of the participants in the Working Group. The high heterogeneity of human tissue samples and the wide number of pre-analytic factors associated to quality of samples makes it very difficult to harmonize the quality criteria. However, the proposed method to assess human tissue sample integrity and antigenicity will not only help to evaluate whether stored human tissue samples fit for the purpose of biomarker development, but will also allow to perform further studies, such as assessing the impact of different pre-analytical factors on very well characterized samples or evaluating the readjustment of tissue sample collection, processing and storing procedures. By ensuring the quality of the samples used on research, the reproducibility of scientific results will be guaranteed.

scholarly journals Cloud-based Software Platforms for Citizen Science: Implications and opportunities for biodiversity standards

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Brenton
Keyword(s):  
Citizen Science ◽  
Quality Of Data ◽  
The Public ◽  
Science Projects ◽  
Improved Outcomes ◽  
Metadata Standards ◽  
Software Platforms ◽  
Functional Software ◽  
The Cost

Whether community created and driven, or developed and run by researchers, most citizen science projects operate on minimalistic budgets, their capacity to invest in fully featured bespoke software and databases is usually very limited. Further, the increasing number of applications and citizen science options available for public participation creates a confusing situation to navigate. Cloud-based platforms such as BioCollect, iNaturalist, eBird, CitSci.org, and Zooniverse, provide an opportunity for citizen science projects to leverage highly featured functional software capabilities at a fraction of the cost of developing their own, as well as a common channel through which the public can find and access projects. These platforms are also excellent vehicles to facilitate the implementation of data and metadata standards, which streamline interoperability and data sharing. Such services can also embed measures in their design, which uplift the descriptions and quality of data outputs, significantly amplifying their usability and value. In this presentation I outline the experiences of the Atlas of Living Australia on these issues and demonstrate how we are tackling them with the BioCollect and iNaturalist platforms. We also consider the differences and similarities of these two platforms with respect to standards and data structures in relation to suitability for different use cases. You are invited to join a discussion on approaches being adopted and offer insights for improved outcomes.

scholarly journals When Scientists Become Social Scientists: How Citizen Science Projects Learn About Volunteers

1970 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 61-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Darch
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Citizen Science ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Science Project ◽  
Science Projects ◽  
Long Term Observation ◽  
Citizen Science Project

Online citizen science projects involve recruitment of volunteers to assist researchers with the creation, curation, and analysis of large datasets. Enhancing the quality of these data products is a fundamental concern for teams running citizen science projects. Decisions about a project’s design and operations have a critical effect both on whether the project recruits and retains enough volunteers, and on the quality of volunteers’ work. The processes by which the team running a project learn about their volunteers play a critical role in these decisions. Improving these processes will enhance decision-making, resulting in better quality datasets, and more successful outcomes for citizen science projects. This paper presents a qualitative case study, involving interviews and long-term observation, of how the team running Galaxy Zoo, a major citizen science project in astronomy, came to know their volunteers and how this knowledge shaped their decision-making processes. This paper presents three instances that played significant roles in shaping Galaxy Zoo team members’ understandings of volunteers. Team members integrated heterogeneous sources of information to derive new insights into the volunteers. Project metrics and formal studies of volunteers combined with tacit understandings gained through on- and offline interactions with volunteers. This paper presents a number of recommendations for practice. These recommendations include strategies for improving how citizen science project team members learn about volunteers, and how teams can more effectively circulate among themselves what they learn.

scholarly journals Understanding volunteer motivations to participate in citizen science projects: a deeper look at water quality monitoring

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (03) ◽  
pp. A04 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bethany Alender
Keyword(s):  
Water Quality ◽  
Citizen Science ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Water Quality Monitoring ◽  
Project Managers ◽  
Environmental Stewardship ◽  
Quality Monitoring ◽  
Older Volunteers ◽  
Science Projects ◽  
The U.S

Volunteer water quality monitors represent the intersection between citizen science and environmental stewardship. Understanding what motivates participation will enable project managers to improve recruitment and retention. This survey of 271 volunteers from eight water quality monitoring organizations in the U.S. found the strongest motivators to participate are helping the environment or community and contributing to scientific knowledge. No variation by gender was found, but younger volunteers have different motivations and preferences than older volunteers. Volunteers value the communication of tangible results more than recognition or reward.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document