Benefits of Citizen Science for Libraries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is reviewed om the following premises:

It is targeted for: 10th Anniversary Special Issue. "PUBMET2023 Conference on Scholarly Communication in the Context of Open Science".

Also, from the abstract:

1) Goal: an understanding of the specific ways in which citizen 14 science can benefit libraries and how libraries can effectively utilize citizen science to achieve their goals

2) Libraries in general

3) Based on a systematic peer review

4) A list of the main benefits of citizen science for libraries has been compiled from the literature.

On the overall it's a sound article and rewarding work that will add to the field of libraries in Citizen Science. Thus, I recommend it for publication if the authors address the following revisions.

Based on additional literature within the field of libraries and Citizen Science I propose two main revisions (laid out in details below).

1) A distinction between public libraries and research libraries

2) Possibly adding/discussing additional benefits

Below are the detailed suggestions for revisions.

SECTION: INTRODUCTION

**Line 27-31

“Participants collect, share, analyse, or transcribe data and observations, often over large geographic areas or extended periods, generally utilizing mobile applications and the internet. Citizen Science is also known as community science, crowd-supported science, cloud science, volunteer monitoring, or simply public participation in scientific research. [1]”

COMMENT: I feel the authors should widen the definition and briefly address this. They do not mention CS as participatory research or extreme Citizen Science as proposed by Muki Haklay. This could potentially expand the role of libraries as facilitators. See e.g. Haklay et al (2021): https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4

**Line 31-37

“Citizen Science offers numerous opportunities for scientific research, harnessing the collective power of individuals from diverse backgrounds. This approach not only expands the scope of scientific investigations but also brings research closer to the public, fostering a sense of shared responsibility and engagement in scientific discovery. Additionally, it promotes a deeper understanding of complex issues and encourages collaboration between citizens and professional scientists, ultimately benefiting society as a whole.”

Comment: I’m sure it’s correct but it lacks a reference (footnote)

**Line 39:

“By prioritizing the methods and procedures over the final results.”

Comment: This implies the process is more important that the scientific results. I urge the authors to add to the statement e.g. digging into Finger et a. (2023) that state:

“In contrast, many empirical scientific articles answered research questions in different scientific disciplines based on Citizen Science data and many studies confirmed a high level of Citizen Science data quality providing information on the scientific outcomes.” (from the abstract)

This suggests that Citizen Science data can contribute to excellent research – not only methods and procedures. Furthermore, this was also proposed by Nature (2018) in the editorial below:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2023.1226529/full

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06855-7

**Line 45-46

“Citizen science enhances scientific literacy and promotes a sense of shared ownership of research, ultimately contributing to a more scientifically engaged and informed society.”

Comment: Lacks a reference (footnote).

**After line 64

Comment: I propose an addition that will also add a potential benefit for libraries. Not all researchers see the benefits of Citizen Science as laid out in the case study by Golumbic et al. (2017) and probably others and newer. If this is added it allows libraries the benefit to push for advocacy (see later.

https://theoryandpractice.citizenscienceassociation.org/articles/10.5334/cstp.53

SECTION: BENEFITS FOR LIBRARIES

Comment: The article should distinguish more clearly between public libraries and research or academic libraries. Engaging in Citizen Science could benefit both types of libraries. The public library discourse mentions relevant literature and seems fine, but Kaarsted et al. (2023) (page 14ff) mention two set of reflections for research libraries that the authors could include (where relevant) and discuss at the end. Also, Ayris & Ignat (2020) (page 15ff) mention possible benefits. 

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/opis-2022-0146/html

https://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.501

SECTION: MATERIALS AND METHODS

**Line 111

Comment: The article mentions Cigarini et al. regarding libraries and ‘hubs’ for Citizen Science. It’s feels relevant to explore the root and ‘the why’ of this premise at laid out by the LERU Advice Paper (2016) that propose, when viable, that research institutions establish a single point of contact (or hub) for Citizen Science. This has been explored more in-depths by Ayris & Ignat (2020) (page 15ff) who propose a the BESPOC model as a hub.

https://www.leru.org/publications/citizen-science-at-universities-trends-guidelines-and-recommendations

https://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.501

SECTION: BENEFITS

Comment: Kaarsted et al. (2023) and Ayris and Ignat (2020) propose some potential benefits for research libraries, again highlighting the need for a distinction between this type of library and public libraries: Advocacy, Utilizing exciting competences, and teaching Citizen Science. Also, this study (Kaarsted et al. 2023) propose that European research libraries already report (most of) these skills and competencies.

CONCLUSION

Overall comment: I feel the article will improve if the authors in the conclusion follow the thread above and distinguish between public libraries and research/academic libraries.

**Line 250-252

“Moreover, the professional and personal development of library staff is a direct outcome, as they acquire new skills and insights through active participation.”

Comment: As mentioned by Kaarsted et al. (2023) suggest utilizing exciting competences. This should be included.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude for your detailed review, suggestions, and the provided literature. Below are explanations regarding the changes made, along with comments:

1. A distinction between public libraries and research libraries

Following your advice, definitions for public and research libraries have been added and contextualized within the framework of citizen science. Literature related to these libraries has been included in Chapter 2, from line 113 to line 149.

2. Possibly adding/discussing additional benefits:

SECTION: INTRODUCTION:

Based on your recommendation, more detailed explanations of citizen science have been added. Initial definitions (Irwin; Booney) have been mentioned, and Harkly's levels of participant involvement have been included.

• Previous lines 31-37 and current lines 63-69

This is the original thought by authors of this paper providing commentary on the entire paragraph.

• Literature confirming that Citizen Science data can contribute to excellent research has been added per your suggestion (thank you!).
• "Citizen science enhances scientific literacy and promotes a sense of shared ownership of research, ultimately contributing to a more scientifically engaged and informed society." – These are the author's words, but they have been removed to avoid deviating into the topic of scientific literacy.
• Based on your advice, the negative perspectives of scientists on citizen science have been added, and three relevant studies on this topic have been briefly mentioned. If the content does not fit seamlessly where it has been inserted (150-168), we kindly ask the reviewer to advise on the appropriate section for this text.

Section: Benefits for the libraries

• Upon your suggestion, this section has been divided into two subsections: Public and research libraries.
• In the "Discussion" section, three additional benefits—advocacy, teaching citizen science, and utilizing existing competences—have been added, along with a corresponding discussion.
• The bibliography now comprises 43 references.

We appreciate your thorough review, clarification of literature page numbers, and advice on how to improve the article. We are here for any necessary additional adjustments.

Sincerely,

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is a review of some of the most preeminent publications on the connection between citizen science and libraries. However, the work is quite superficial and it could be highly welcomed to go deeper in the issues being presented and to better articulate the findings with a systematic methodology around the bibliographic exploration (going further than a key terms search in google scholar and going deeper in the content analysis of the publications being identified). For instance, I would have liked to have a more extended and deep work around the common ideas being raised by the several publications being analysed. I however ignore if there is some space limitation as the manuscript belongs to a special issue.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your review. We have made significant revisions to our article, incorporating additional literature. We have defined the roles of both public and research libraries.

Here is an explanation of why we utilized Google Scholar for literature search. When entering key terms such as "citizen science" AND "librar*" AND "benefit*" in platforms like WOS, only 8 results were obtained. These results were not strictly related to citizen science in libraries, and the benefits were often associated with benefits for science or community (not for libraries). On the other hand, Google Scholar provided more results specifically related to the researched topic.

Additionally, a paragraph on open science has been added at the beginning as an introduction to citizen science. The conclusion has been significantly expanded, and advice on further utilizing and enhancing the mentioned benefits has been incorporated.

We are here for any necessary additional adjustments.

Thank you!

Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No comment other that the authors seem to have done a thorough job revising their work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have significantly improved the paper. I would however ask for a careful language edition.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are several typos that needs to be ammended. Also, I would ask to revise some of the terms. For instance, the authors talk about about "teaching" but I believe that it could more precise to use the term "training".