<ns3:p>Background Citizen science is increasingly recognized as a valuable scientific approach across disciplines, contexts, and research areas. However, its rapid expansion and diverse methodologies make it challenging to establish a single definition or universal criteria for what constitutes citizen science. Building on our previously published work that detailed findings from a vignette study used to identify the ECSA Characteristics, this paper specifically focuses on the descriptive results from that study and examines the Characteristics in relation to the ECSA 10 Principles of Citizen Science. Methods We developed the ECSA Characteristics through a vignette study, a survey method that captures diverse perspectives on complex topics. We then reviewed the ECSA 10 Principles of Citizen Science, a broad framework for best practices in citizen science, to identify its gaps and limitations, showing how the ECSA Characteristics can help address them. Results The results highlight the disciplinary distinctions as well as ambiguities surrounding various citizen science practices. In this context, it is beneficial to adopt an inclusive approach and language that allows the audience to define its own criteria depending on its needs, intended use and specific circumstances. Conclusions The ECSA Characteristics were developed in a spirit of openness; identifying areas with diverse and even conflicting views was central to this practice. We recommend their use as a whole set and contend that no one area or characteristic is more important than the other. They should be considered as a toolkit with examples that can guide efforts towards defining citizen science for a specific context and purpose. They are built on the ECSA 10 Principles, addressing some of their gaps and limitations, while at the same time acknowledging the need to update and improve the 10 Principles based on developments in the field.</ns3:p>
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fraisl et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: