Correction

After publication of Freitag, A., Meyer, R. & Whiteman, L., (2016) it was brought to light that a small number of data errors and definitions were incorrect or required clarity. These errors do not compromise the central purpose and conclusions of the paper, with all other content remaining valid. The authors take responsibility for the occurrence of the errors. Details of the required corrections are below, along with the relevant page number of the original publication.

Table 1

Errors were present within the original Table 1 (p. 4–5) concerning the “Beach Watch” data (row 1) and the resulting “% employing strategy” (bottom row). The corrected Table 1 is presented below.

Credibility-building Strategies
total Context for Strategies
early actions in the field in the office

prior expertise training science advising ranking system in-person oversight re-training technological aids Validation of observations cross comparison publication management use Quality assurance sole source of data? institutional affiliation size of volunteer pool group vs. individual time commitment

Beach Watch N H Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N 8 Y Y L G M
BeachCOMBERS N H Y N N optional N Y Y Y Y N 6 Y Y M G M
Beachkeepers N N N N N N N N N N Y N 1 Y N L G L
Black Oystercatcher Monitoring Y N Y N N N N N N Y Y N 4 Y N M G M
Blue Water Task Force N L Y N Y N N N Y Y Y Y 7 N N L G M
CA King Tides N N N N N N Y N N N N N 1 Y N L I L
CCFRP N L Y N Y N N Y N Y Y N 6 N Y L G M
CWC (First Flush) N M Y N N N Y N N N Y Y 5 N N M G L
CWC (Urban Watch) N M Y N maybe optional Y N N N Y Y 7 N N S G L
Elkhorn Slough (otters) Y L Y N N N Y N Y Y Y N 7 N Y S G M
Elkhorn Slough (algae) Y L Y N Y N N N N Y N N 5 N Y S G M
Elkhorn Slough (nestboxes) N M Y N N N N N N Y Y N 3 N Y S I H
Elkhorn Slough (shorebirds) Y L Y N Y N N N Y Y Y N 6 N Y M G L
Grunion Greeters N M Y N maybe N N N Y Y Y N 5 N Y L G M
iNaturalist N N N Y N N Y Y N Y Y N 5 N Y L I L
Jellywatch N N Y Y N N Y Y n/a Y Y N 6 Y Y L I L
Leatherback Watch N N Y Y N N Y Y N y N Y 6 Y Y L I L
Lighthawk Y N Y n/a n/a n/a Y n/a n/a Y Y n/a 5 Y N S I M
LiMPETS N M Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N 8 N Y M G M
Marine Debris Action Teams N M N N Y N N Y Y Y Y N 6 N Y M G M
Marine Debris Tracker N N N N N N Y Y N Y Y N 4 N Y L I L
Monterey Bay NMS VMP N M Y N maybe N Y N N Y Y Y 7 N Y L G H
Morro Bay NEP VMP N L Y N Y N Y N Y Y Y N 6 N Y M I M
MPA Watch N L Y N N N Y Y n/a N N N 4 Y N M I H
Phytoplankton Monitoring Program N M Y N N N N Y Y Y Y N 6 N Y M I L
REEF N L Y Y N optional N Y Y Y Y N 8 N N L I L
Reef Check CA Y M Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N 10 N N L G H
Seabird Protection Network N L Y Y N N N Y N Y Y N 6 N N L G M
Shorebird Monitoring (Morro Bay) N L Y N Y N N N N Y Y N 5 N N M G L
SPLASH N L Y N N N Y Y N Y Y N 6 Y N L I L
average:
% employing strategy 20 73 83 23 40 20 47 50 40 83 87 17 5.6

Table 1

Summary of credibility-building strategies and related context of 30 citizen science groups working in the Central Coast of California. Symbols in each column are explained in detail in the text, but each activity column was either Y/N for yes or no regarding whether the activity exists within the project or H/M/L/N for high/medium/low/no indicating the level of the activity. Each context column is Y/N for yes or no in answer to the question, S/M/L for small/medium/large depicting the size of a program component, or G/I for group or individual activity.

Definitions

Two of the “credibility strategy” definitions (p. 6–7) required minor edits to provide clarification. The corrected text is given below.

– For the section “In the field” point 2 should read:

  • 2. In-person oversight – Many data errors happen in the field. To address this, some projects designate staff, science partners, or “expert” volunteers to directly oversee data collection (indicated as a “yes” in the table if in-person oversight is always part of volunteer data collection).

– For the section “In the office,” point 5 should read:

  • 5. Quality assurance protocol – For some topics, standard quality assurance protocols are a required part of scientific practice in order to calibrate methods, technology, and practice over time. For citizen science, these protocols also certify volunteer capability in addition to the methods. “Yes” in the table indicates that a QA protocol, broadly recognized as an accepted standard, is available and required.