Much can be at stake depending on the choice of words used to describe citizen science, because terminology impacts how knowledge is developed. Citizen science is a quickly evolving field that is mobilizing people's involvement in information development, social action and justice, and large-scale information gathering. Currently, a wide variety of terms and expressions are being used to refer to the concept of 'citizen science' and its practitioners. Here, we explore these terms to help provide guidance for the future growth of this field. We do this by reviewing the theoretical, historical, geopolitical, and disciplinary context of citizen science terminology; discussing what citizen science is and reviewing related terms; and providing a collection of potential terms and definitions for 'citizen science' and people participating in citizen science projects. This collection of terms was generated primarily from the broad knowledge base and on-the-ground experience of the authors, by recognizing the potential issues associated with various terms. While our examples may not be systematic or exhaustive, they are intended to be suggestive and invitational of future consideration. In our collective experience with citizen science projects, no single term is appropriate for all contexts. In a given citizen science project, we suggest that terms should be chosen carefully and their usage explained; direct communication with participants about how terminology affects them and what they would prefer to be called also should occur. We further recommend that a more systematic study of terminology trends in citizen science be conducted.

Openness and collaboration in scientific research are attracting increasing attention from scholars and practitioners alike. However, a common understanding of these phenomena is hindered by disciplinary boundaries and disconnected research streams. We link dispersed knowledge on Open Innovation, Open Science, and related concepts such as Responsible Research and Innovation by proposing a unifying Open Innovation in Science (OIS) Research Framework. This framework captures the antecedents, contingencies, and consequences of open and collaborative practices along the entire process of generating and disseminating scientific insights and translating them into innovation. Moreover, it elucidates individual-, team-, organisation-, field-, and society-level factors shaping OIS practices. To conceptualise the framework, we employed a collaborative approach involving 47 scholars from multiple disciplines, highlighting both tensions and commonalities between existing approaches. The OIS Research Framework thus serves as a basis for future research, informs policy discussions, and provides guidance to scientists and practitioners.

In this chapter, we address the perennial question of what is citizen science? by asking the related question, why is it challenging to define citizen science? Over the past decade and a half, we have seen the emergence of typologies, definitions, and criteria for qualifying citizen science. Yet, citizen science as a field seems somewhat resistant to obeying a limited set of definitions and instead attracts discussions about what type of activities and practices should be included in it. We explore how citizen science has been defined differently, depending on the context. We do that from a particularly European perspective, where the variety of national and subnational structures has also led to a diversity of practices. Based on this background, we track trade-offs linked to the prioritisation of these different objectives and aims of citizen science. Understanding these differences and their origin is important for practitioners and policymakers. We pay attention to the need for definitions and criteria for specific contexts and how people in different roles can approach the issue of what is included in a specific interpretation of citizen science.

Citizen science has expanded rapidly over the past decades. Yet, defining citizen science and its boundaries remained a challenge, and this is reflected in the literature—for example in the proliferation of typologies and definitions. There is a need for identifying areas of agreement and disagreement within the citizen science practitioners community on what should be considered as citizen science activity. This paper describes the development and results of a survey that examined this issue, through the use of vignettes—short case descriptions that describe an activity, while asking the respondents to rate the activity on a scale from ‘not citizen science’ (0%) to ‘citizen science’ (100%). The survey included 50 vignettes, of which five were developed as clear cases of not-citizen science activities, five as widely accepted citizen science activities and the others addressing 10 factors and 61 sub-factors that can lead to controversy about an activity. The survey has attracted 333 respondents, who provided over 5100 ratings. The analysis demonstrates the plurality of understanding of what citizen science is and calls for an open understanding of what activities are included in the field.

Adequate infrastructure for citizen science is constantly growing and has become increasingly important in providing support to citizen science activities, both nationally and internationally. Many types of citizen science infrastructures exist, with different functionalities. This chapter focuses on current citizen science platforms. The platforms addressed in this chapter are those which display citizen science data and information, provide good practical examples and toolkits, collect relevant scientific outcomes, and are accessible to different stakeholders, ranging from interested citizens to scientific institutions to authorities, politicians, and public media. We present current citizen science platforms in Europe and associated (inter)national citizen science networks and discuss how these platforms have become increasingly vital within citizen science. Based on these examples, we elaborate on challenges for citizen science platforms, such as establishing and financing platforms, designing user interfaces, maintaining platforms, promoting the usage of platforms, etc. We conclude with an outlook into potential development needs of citizen science platforms in the future.

Zur Zeit gibt es starke Bemühungen, die offensichtlichen Defizite des wissenschaftlichen Kommunikationssystems zu beheben. Open Science hat das Potenzial, die Produktion und Verbreitung von wissenschaftlichem Wissen positiv zu verändern; es existiert aber keine gemeinsam geteilte Vision, die das System wissenschaftlicher Kommunikation beschreibt, welches wir erschaffen wollen. Zwischen April 2015 und Juni 2016 trafen sich in Wien die Mitglieder der Open Access Network Austria (OANA) Arbeitsgruppe "Open Access and Scholarly Communication", um diese Angelegenheit zu diskutieren. Das Hauptergebnis unserer Überlegungen sind zwölf Prinzipien, die die Eckpfeiler eines künftigen wissenschaftlichen Kommunikationssystems dedarstellen. Diese Prinzipien sollen einen kohärenten Bezugsrahmen für die Debatte zur Verbesserung des derzeitigen Systems liefern. Mit diesem Dokument hoffen wir, eine breite Diskussion über eine gemeinsame Vision für die wissenschaftliche Kommunikation im 21. Jahrhundert anzustoßen.

No abstract

Soon after publication the authors were made aware of an error within Table 3 of the original publication. The example given as the 'Scientist' term 'Citizen scientist, Scientist-citizen, public scientist, community scientist' previously read: "Citizen scientists investigated anecdotal evidence to construct hypotheses regarding developmental disorders that members of the public claimed were triggered by a MMR vaccine." This should have read: "Citizen scientists investigated anecdotal evidence to construct hypotheses regarding developmental disorders that members of the public claimed were triggered by chemical pollution." The corrected Table 3 is presented here.