PONE-D-22-30825Practical Recommendations from a Multi-Perspective Needs and Challenges Assessment of Citizen Science GamesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Miller,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit, however, there are some small improvements that could be made. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

 Both reviewers were highly complementary of your manuscript, and have provided some suggestions to improve your manuscript. I invite you to carefully consider the reviewer comments below so as to improve your manuscript before acceptance and publication.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 27 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Peter Edwards

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

5. We note that Figure 2 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 2 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission. 

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Overall this is a very readable and useful account of citizen science games! I am so excited to see it! Here are some comments:

1. In the introduction, you mention that there are some studies that identify challenges with using CSGs. Another one to consider: They aren't engaging/well-designed sometimes. in comparison to typical popular games, they may not be as fun to play. (Cite Knowledge Games by Karen Schrier?)

2. Ethical considerations of citizen science games were discussed, but this article on that specific topic was not cited: https://journals.suub.uni-bremen.de/index.php/gamevironments/article/view/147/131 (The ethics of citizen science games)

3. Why did you use purposeful sampling? Was this because of the small sample size of CGSs or ones you have access to?

4. Was there just one person conducting the thematic analysis or was this a shared task among the researchers? It's stated but still not clear why the secondary analysis was used. Themes vs. topics -- can you give examples of what you mean by this?

5. co-laborative --> collaborative? Or is this a term that is undefined/jargon that should be defined further?

6. It's not clear why the thematic analysis was used in the first place, and it is not clear enough why the second series of methodologies were used.

7. This sentence, and the surrounding sentences, are a bit confusing. "Following an ethnographic and grounded theory approach data collection and analysis did not present independent successive but alternating phases." It's also confusing that you have some games used in the first approach, and then a subset in the second, and why it was a subset. I find the methods descriptions and rationales confusing and glossed over too much.

8. I am glad you explained the games. Should that be moved up earlier in the methods section? Could there be a chart of games and which methods you used with which?

9. The results in general are well-organized. I don't think any of the results are particularly surprising--they all make sense--but it's good to have them be written out. I also agree that people seem to have a hard time realizing the distinction between game designers and developers. This feels like part of the issue/tension that exists with CSGs being outside of the realm of the industry/professionals. A game designer of a CSG needs to not just be a professional designer but really understand CSGs and how to design them--the science, the community, and the stakeholders. This is a difficult and complex skillset to find but it should be found and not given to the game developer (no, please, no) or the scientists/grad students (also, no). Game design is a profession that should be valued (same with community managers, etc). As for educators/students, that part of community building and education needs to be established from the start.

10. The ecosystem among everyone needs to be valued from greater society--I agree!

11. "At the citizen science conferences,” says [DS5], “you don't really feel like you belong.”--This is very important! It's such a hybrid, new, interdisciplinary approach that you feel like you are not anywhere and there is no broader professional community or set of practices that you can access. It's also extremely difficult as a person of color/woman/other marginalized group even further.

12. Recommendations are great to see. I would include some with valuing the professions of game design, development, and community management more readily, with a plan of how to fund these as a professional, rather than through student work or interns. Can they get funding for a vendor? Also, I know this is an area of expertise for some of you, but it is problematic when it says "gamified" throughout the paper-- these are games (CSGs) not gamified content. To me, they should be considered full-fledged games from the outset.

13. I like the table for recommendations. Could you separate it out as recommendations for development team, scientific community, educational community, etc?

Thanks again for writing this article!

Reviewer #2: This is a thorough, and very well presented longitudinal study of Citizen Science projects employing gamification techniques. I thank the author for a very well written paper, that will contribute a lot to the understand of stakeholder views, challenges and issues long into the future. I recommend that this work is accepted.

My only comments would be:

1. A more thorough description of the projects, with an explanation of the type of gaming employed (leader boards, collaborative, first-person, exploration etc.), and perhaps an investigation on how these types correlate to the opinions of stakeholders - this could be a whole follow-up paper however!

2. Perhaps a section on the disciplines involved in each project, how they relate to the school subjects, and if that correlates with any of the opinions of the students and/or teachers involved.

3. There are now some very strong examples of citizen science being incorporated into commercial gaming, instead of the other way around (see MMOS, Project Discover on EVE online https://www.eveonline.com/discovery, and Borderlands 3 https://www.pcgamer.com/how-eve-online-and-borderlands-3-merge-citizen-science-and-minigames/) - where the game design and creation very much takes centre stage. This probably should at least be discussed at some point.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Practical Recommendations from a Multi-Perspective Needs and Challenges Assessment of Citizen Science Games

PONE-D-22-30825R1

Dear Dr. Miller,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Peter Edwards

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: