Moderation and Quality Criteria

The projects and activities you can find on this platform are an expression of what has been produced by the Italian Citizen Science community, and result from a joint effort between the Citizen Science Italia association (CSI) and the National Biodiversity Future Center (NBFC). Anyone managing a Citizen Science project or activity who wishes to upload it to the platform can do so by creating their own profile. In line with what happens on the European Citizen Science platform, content is subject to a moderation process before publication, applying the quality criteria developed within the European project EU-Citizen.Science.

The moderation process

Our ambitious goal is to become the reference point for planning, managing, evaluating, and participating in Citizen Science initiatives, or simply for accessing information on participatory science, including tools, guidelines, and training modules.

We consider it very important that the quality of the resources on the platform is ensured and that the listed projects are genuinely Citizen Science. Since this is a relatively new field, it is essential that the platform’s offerings align with the core principles of the international and national community. For this reason, we have adopted a moderation procedure for user-submitted content.
When you create content to be added to the platform, you will be asked to provide a set of descriptive information; once all required fields are completed, you can save the content, which will then be submitted for moderation. Until it has been reviewed according to our platform quality criteria, the content will be marked as "not yet moderated" and will not automatically appear in search results. Once the content successfully passes the moderation process, it will be marked as "moderated" and will be publicly visible in search results.

Quality criteria

The quality criteria are inspired by those of the EU-Citizen.Science platform.

General criteria

Required criteria – Citizen Science

The first criterion considered is the relevance of the content within the context of Citizen Science.
Although there is no single definition of Citizen Science, as it can take on different meanings depending on the fields in which it is applied and the activities it promotes, the recent work ECSA Characteristics of Citizen Science developed by the Citizen Science community provides a valuable reference, which is used here as guidance. Please consult the resources available at the link above to assess whether the resource or project you wish to upload aligns with the criteria and values of Citizen Science. If the moderator has any doubts, you will be contacted for clarification.
During the evaluation process, it will also be verified whether all mandatory fields in the resource profile have been correctly completed. This ensures that each resource on the platform has sufficient qualitative and quantitative information for user consultation.

Suggested criteria: the 10 ECSA Principles of Citizen Science

The moderator will also assess whether your resource or project under review aligns with the 10 ECSA Principles of Citizen Science.

Specific criteria

For resources shared on the platform, we have developed a specific set of additional criteria. You can read more in the blog post "How we developed quality criteria for resources".

We consider high-quality Citizen Science resources to be those that are easily accessible, implementable, and adaptable, well-structured, clearly presented, and written in clear language, and that ideally enhance or support the intended impact of the initiative (e.g., scientific, policy-related, social, etc.). The moderator will evaluate the following criteria on a 5-point scale, from strongly disagree (1 point) to strongly agree (5 points):

• Easy access to the resource
  • The resource should be easily accessible, meaning it does not require registration or payment.
• Clarity and readability
  • The content should be clearly structured according to the type of resource. For example, a scientific article or report should include an introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and/or conclusions; methodological documents should include an introduction, a description of the audience, a detailed methodology, and an example.
  • The content should be written in clear, easy-to-read language suitable for the target audience, concise, unambiguous, and avoid unusual words and jargon. Where technical terms are used, their meaning should be clearly explained.
  • The content should pay attention to basic formatting, such as clear headings and paragraphs, correct grammar and spelling, a readable font of sufficient size, and clearly marked references.
• Clarity of content
  • The resource should clearly describe its aims, objectives, and methods, making it easy for users to understand how to apply it in their context.
• Applicability
  • The resource should be easy to implement, ideally including descriptions of how it can be used, the contexts in which it is useful, and recommendations for further use or development.
  • The resource should also be easily adaptable to different contexts, ideally with an explanation of any limitations and the circumstances in which it may be useful, including guidelines and/or recommendations for its use.
• Technical quality
  • If the resource is an audio object, it should be clearly audible, without interruptions or background noise.
  • If the resource is a video, image, or illustration, the quality should be good enough to be clearly visible, with sharp focus.

The maximum score that can be assigned is 40 points, if all criteria are applicable. In most cases, however, only a selection of the above criteria will apply. The moderator will assess whether the resource achieves at least 50% of the total possible score, which is considered the threshold for publication on the platform.

Supporting criteria

The value and quality of a resource can be significantly enhanced by providing additional details on how it has been used and, where applicable, further developed in practice, including possible indications of its evaluation in terms of usefulness and applicability. The moderator will also positively consider evidence of compliance with the following criteria (not included in the threshold calculation mentioned above):

• Evaluation
  • The resource has been used or is currently being used in a Citizen Science context and the outcome has been shared.
  • The resource has been evaluated in other contexts in terms of content quality, methods, or results of the method, and the outcomes of these evaluations have been shared.
• Impact
  • The resource refers to any impact it may have (or has had) on scientific, policy, social, or other aspects.
  • The impact of the resource has been measured and shared at the time of submission.