Technological Affordance and the Realities of Citizen Science Projects Developed in Challenging Territories

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript “Technological affordance and the realities of citizen science projects developed in challenging territories” by Grigoletto et al, explores an unstructured citizen science program targeting a rural community located in a remote biodiversity hotspot. The authors discuss an unconventional approach, raising several points that are relevant for citizen science approaches in general.

 

I believe that the manuscript presents several interesting issues but various key parts of the text need revising. Considering the wide scope of Sustainability, the authors should add some key definitions (e.g., situated response) and restructure the manuscript with the classic frame (Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion). The first two “chapters”, Introduction and Participation in Citizen Science should be combined, adding a clear discussion of the aims of the paper at the end. The methods, results and discussion sections are now missing, and the information is mixed in “chapters” that address all the topics together. Even if this would be acceptable for some journals, in this case I believe it makes the manuscript very difficult to follow. 

 

Minor issues can be found in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We would like to start by thanking you for your comments. We understand that they were essential for the improvement of the article.

 

We emphasize that our goal was to fully respond to your comments. We have broken down the long sentences you pointed out, as well as included outstanding definitions (situated response) and a description of the analyzed virtual interactions. The analysis process was explained in the methodological section, where we also detail the development of the message group in chronological terms. We describe this process also in terms of the number and profile of participants over time.

Finally, we added references where requested and restructured the article in accordance with the journal's recommendations.

We hope that the review process has fully addressed your comments, which we thank you again.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The current research stated that citizen science has established itself as a relevant approach to the co-production of knowledge and public participation in scientific research. Combined with the use of digital technologies and online tools, the approach has been celebrated as a path towards the democratization of science. However, few studies have investigated the role played by digital technologies in shaping interactions between people and nature. Additionally, the role of context in shaping online and face-to-face participation in citizen science projects has received little attention. This article takes a citizen science initiative carried out in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest, in the state of São Paulo, as an illustrative case of the emergence of unanticipated consequences of digital technologies. The emergence of a socio-material practice of animal identification through a WhatsApp group is described, allowing a better understanding of the role of digital technologies and context in framing participation in citizen science projects in challenging environments. Yet, this research lacks literature review, rigor discussion and proper theoretical & managerial implications. Thus, it will be better to have several separate sections that describe implications for academics and practitioners appropriately. Further, more recent references are required to enrich the research context. Also, the research manuscript should follow the referencing style of the respected journal.  

Author Response

We thank you for your comments, which we understand as essential for the review we carried out.

We have expanded the literature review, adding more recent references and emphasizing conceptual aspects relevant to the argument. The discussion was deepened after the restructuring of the article in accordance with the journal's guidelines and the re-elaboration of the methodological section. A section dedicated to theoretical and managerial implications was introduced after the discussion and results. References have been corrected in accordance with the style of the journal.

We hope to have responded to your comments in full.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article concerns the possibility of using new technologies to promote knowledge and science. In this approach, I believe that the authors used a well-known and common tool, but a very innovative approach. However, the current version of the article is not suitable for publication

1. The article should be formatted in accordance with the requirements of the publisher (division of individual parts, rules of citation, etc.).

2. The abstract should be revised as required (the aim of the study and the results achieved are missing)

3. I suggest adding a methodology chapter, in which you should describe what research, when, what tools and how many people were involved in the experiment. Individual descriptions can be found in various parts of the article. This needs to be changed.

4. In the results section, provide a summary (tables, charts) of how many and which species were identified.

5. Maybe it's worth adding photos of other interesting species of fauna and flora that were encountered during the expeditions. There is only one example in the article.

Author Response

We thank you for your comments, which we understand as essential for the review we carried out. Now, we answer your points separately:

1. The article was formatted in accordance with the journal's guidelines;

2. The summary has been revised in line with your comment;

3. The methodology section has been reworked in response to your suggestions;

4. A description of the interactions was included in the results section, as well as a summary table of the analysis of these interactions;

5. More photos of the identified species were added.

We hope to have fully responded to your comments.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Well done.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for your contribution to improving the article. In this form, I accept it for publication.