PONE-D-23-26515Exploring children and young people’s experience of participating in citizen science – a qualitative evidence synthesis.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Frazer,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 24 2024 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,

Allanise Cloete, PhD (Anthropology)

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 be informed that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "The author(s) received no specific funding for this work."

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. 

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Additional Editor Comments:

• This is an important topic and has significant implications for research that is impactful, in the lives of young people. However, there are a few unnecessary errors which warrants a resubmission.

• Why has the librarian not been included as an author or in the least official acknowledgement by name in the acknowledgement section?

o “The research team (MF, JH, ADS, MT) and librarian developed 147 search strategies (S2 Key search terms)”

• Please mention the 7 databases in the body of the manuscript – and why you have selected these 7 databases – either providing a reason for each – or an overall reason

• Which 7 databases? And why these 7 databases?

• Different fonts used in the manuscript – looks like Times New Roman and Arial –

• Duplication of paragraphs – just before the conclusion

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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: Yes

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: The manuscript under review explores a topical subject: the experience of young people participating in citizen science. This inquiry is crucial in light of the escalating adoption of citizen science projects in contemporary research. The methodology, a thematic synthesis of research on citizen scientists' experience fills a pending research gap. It emphasizes the need for Citizen Science projects to monitor participants experience as a crucial factor for overall success and long-term impact of CS.

The methodology section elaborates on the qualitative thematic synthesis used for collating literature on the young citizen scientists' experience. The thorough search across seven databases, along with an update in May 2023, indicates a robust and systematic literature search.

However, there are areas of concern. Assigning work steps to authors in the main text is unusual. The inclusion of CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) or a footnote indicating author contributions might be more suitable and align better with common practice.

It's apparent that the researchers successfully identified several themes representing the participant experience. The paper convincingly highlights the interconnectedness of the identified themes.

However,

- The presentation of factors and their frequency across the identified studies would offer clarity. A tally of how many studies identified factors like "Power and Relationships" would be insightful.

- The categorization of the relevant factors by the type of Citizen Science approach (YPAR, PAR, CBR etc.) could enhance the understanding of the results. This would offer additional interpretations, e.g. as to where power is playing a more important role for overall experience.

- Further information regarding the nature of the CS-projects (natural/technical vs. humanities/social sciences) would be beneficial, especially in the context of the Citizen Social Science (CSS) discourse, which this paper touches implicitely by the selection of studies.

- The illustrations in Skarlatidou et al. (2019), for example, could provide suggestions for displaying results in comprehensive tables.

- The authors might want to check the papers listed below, especially since they directly relate to the domain of CSS, to ensure that the manuscript is well-informed and enriched:

1) Göbel, C., Mauermeister, S., & Henke, J. (2022). Citizen Social Science in Germany—Cooperation beyond invited and uninvited participation. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01198-1

2) Albert, A., Balázs, B., Butkevičienė, E., Mayer, K., & Perelló, J. (2021). Citizen Social Science: New and Established Approaches to Participation in Social Research. In K. Vohland, A. Land-Zandstra, L. Ceccaroni, R. Lemmens, J. Perelló, M. Ponti, R. Samson, & K. Wagenknecht (Hrsg.), The Science of Citizen Science (S. 119–138). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4_7

3) Tauginienė, L., Butkevičienė, E., Vohland, K., Heinisch, B., Daskolia, M., Suškevičs, M., Portela, M., Balázs, B., & Prūse, B. (2020). Citizen science in the social sciences and humanities: The power of interdisciplinarity. Palgrave Communications, 6(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0471-y

4) Skarlatidou, A., Suškevičs, M., Göbel, C., Baiba Prūse, Prūse, B., Tauginienė, L., Mascarenhas, A., Marzia Mazzonetto, Mazzonetto, M., Sheppard, A., Barrett, J., Muki Haklay, Haklay, M., Baruch, A., Moraitopoulou, E.-A., Austen, K., Kat F. Austen, Baïz, I., Berditchevskaia, A., … Wyszomirski, P. (2019). The Value of Stakeholder Mapping to Enhance Co-Creation in Citizen Science Initiatives. 4(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.226

List of recommendations

Major revisions:

1. Reconsider the presentation of work steps by authors in the main text, possibly using CRediT or a separate declaration.

2. Enhance the results section with a clear presentation of factors and their occurrence in the studied articles.

3. Provide a breakdown of the factors based on the type of Citizen Science approach.

4. Delve deeper into the nature of the CS-projects to ascertain the balance between natural/technical and humanities/social sciences.

Minor revisions:

1. Rectify the presentation error in lines 339-40, ensuring consistency in quotation formatting.

2. Attend to the typographical issues in lines 626-30.

3. Remove repetitions in lines 1002-3.

4. Evaluate potential areas in the text where the content could be made more concise.

5. Consider incorporating insights from the suggested papers on citizen social sciences.

Overall Impressions

The study's foundation is very solid, promising a valuable contribution to the literature on citizen science with young participants. Addressing the aforementioned major and minor concerns will significantly enhance the manuscript's quality and value. I look forward to witnessing this research's advancements, given its potential to shape the future trajectory of citizen science endeavors.

In conclusion, with some revisions, the paper has the potential to be a notable publication in the realm of citizen science research.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for submitting this revised paper with more recent sources. it is true that there are very few synthesis papers on

youth experiences in citizen science, so this is a novel contribution to the literature base. I have several, mostly minor, suggestions to improve the paper before publication.

A transition sentence is needed to introduce the concept of participant experience on line 81. A bit of theoretical framing on what is meant by "participant" and "experience" would be helpful.

You write: "The study method must include a qualitative review of the participants' citizen science experience, either by the citizen scientists themselves or researchers." Can you explain why this was a inclusion criteria? At least some type of justification for why quantitative studies would not be included would be helpful.

Consider some copy editing before publication. For example, many sentences such as this one have awkward grammatical structures: “For the updated search papers were line-by-line coded by two researchers (MF 100%, 210 AS 50%, KF 50%).” Or this: “This study defines relationships as the connectedness and interactions between people and meanings attached to this human connection can be a positive side of participant experience (48,57)”

Could you provide an intercoder reliability for the team coding? See this paper for example: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1609406919899220

Do you have a reference for this statement or are you hypothesizing that this is how the system works? “As citizen scientists developed skills, knowledge and confidence and emotional understanding, their ability to communicate and interact within relationships changed, which in turn affected the power they felt and were able to use, demonstrated through decision-making.”

On line 478 you wrote “Positive relationships with the facilitators and peer researchers often supported each other and led to positive relationships with the other stakeholders.” What about the negative relationships that were described a few paragraphs earlier – how did those change the nature of the experience?

The communication theme seems very weak and in need of further detail and justification to include in the argument.

The section entitled “wider impacts” seems like a catch all of miscellaneous topics that is difficult to interpret. I suggest either deleting that from the manuscript or trying to recode into some of the other interrelated categories.

I don’t think this statement is accurate: "As with power, relationships have not been highlighted or synthesised as an element 872 of the citizen science experience." Phillips et al (2019) describes this in adults and I believe there is a paper on Monarch Watch which describes this in youth.

A whole paragraph is repeated (lines 1016 – 1021).

Figure 1 was so blurry, I could not read it. In fact, all of the figures were quite blurry. In terms of the venn diagram in Figure 2, could you provide some analytical evidence for these interrelationships beyond what is in the narrative. For example, could you provide a table showing the associations between how often communication came up between relationships and personal growth. I know it's subjective, but by putting a figure that delineates these interrelated relationships, I would want to know how strong that relationship is. Was it mentioned by one study or multiple?

I appreciate all of the supporting documents but what I didn’t see was a codebook – I think this would be the most critical supplementary information to be able to replicate such a study. Could you please provide the full codebook you used to define and categorize your themes?

**********

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.

PONE-D-23-26515R1Exploring children and young people’s experience of participating in citizen science – a qualitative evidence synthesis.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Frazer,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 19 2024 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,

Allanise Cloete, PhD (Anthropology)

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. 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

**********

6. 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: Dear Authors,

The integration of the reviewers' comments into the revised manuscript is commendable. The approach and methodology employed in the study are robust, aligning well with standard practices within the field. However, there are areas, in particular the discussion, in the manuscript that warrant further refinement to fully realize the impact of this research.

1. Results Section:

- To improve the manuscript's readability and cohesiveness, I suggest integrating the subsection titled "Factors Influencing Power" directly into the main "Power" section. Applying this restructuring across other sections as well will ensure that the discussion of each dimension and its influencing factors is more interconnected and accessible to the reader.

- Figure 2: While the themes in the figure are clear, the selection of factors influencing experience and the broader impacts outlined requires further clarification. As this figure is in the beginning of the results section, its basis of selection remains unclear. Addressing selection of most relevant aspects and potential omissions, especially in the "factors influencing experience" category, and elucidating on the somewhat ambiguous term "wider context" would greatly enhance the reader's understanding. The discussion section would be an appropriate place for adressing this.

2. Discussion Section:

- The current discussion of the results, while comprehensive, could benefit from a more focused and sharpened narrative. I recommend a more detailed exploration of the aspects that are particularly relevant to young participants in citizen science. Specifically, it could be beneficial to:

- Contrast the findings with existing studies that discuss influencing factors irrespective of participant age, and/or

- Highlight elements uniquely pertinent to younger individuals, such as the impact of age restrictions or research topics that resonate more strongly with this demographic.

- Wider Impacts Subsection: The purpose of this subsection seems to be primarily to advocate for standardized evaluations in citizen science projects. While important, this could be succinctly addressed in the conclusions. Instead, a justification for the chosen aspects of wider participation as depicted in Figure 2 would be more beneficial in this context.

- Concentration on Limitations**: The "Strengths and Limitations" section should be streamlined to emphasize the limitations of the methodological approach. This focus will provide readers with a clearer understanding of the study's scope and the reliability of its findings.

- Conclusive Summary: A concluding section that precedes or is integrated with "Future Suggestions" appears necessary to succinctly summarize the key messages derived from the analysis of youth experiences in citizen science. Highlighting some of the strengths mentioned previously, along with a compelling articulation of how young people represent a distinct group with specific needs and impacts within citizen science, will lay a solid groundwork for future research.

3. Minor Issues:

- Table 1 Presentation: The right side of Table 1 is truncated, which may hinder the comprehension of the data presented. A review and adjustment of the table's layout are recommended.

- Legibility of Figures: Figures 1 and 2 suffer from legibility issues, potentially due to the PDF export process. Ensuring the clarity and readability of these figures is crucial for readers to fully grasp the presented data and analyses.

By addressing these issues, I am confident that your article will significantly influence further research on this topic.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for addressing each of the reviewer comments. I am satisfied with the diligence the authors took to improve the paper.

**********

7. 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: Yes: Justus Henke

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.

PONE-D-23-26515R2Exploring children and young people’s experience of participating in citizen science – a qualitative evidence synthesis.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Frazer,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

• It is commendable how well you had responded to the reviewer comments. However, it is recommended to proofread before resubmitting.
  Please also refer to PLoSONE's reference style guide:
  In-text citations
  References should be cited in the text by sequential numbers in square brackets:
  This sentence cites one reference [1].
  This sentence cites two references [1,2].
  This sentence cites four references [1–4].

Please ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS ONE’s publication criteria and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact.

For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 20 2024 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,

Allanise Cloete, PhD (Anthropology)

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[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.

Exploring children and young people’s experience of participating in citizen science – a qualitative evidence synthesis.

PONE-D-23-26515R3

Dear Dr. Frazer,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Allanise Cloete, PhD (Anthropology)

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: