This is a well-written manuscript that draws attention to a very important, but insufficiently recognized data type, biological interaction. Most of my notes are small and technical, and easy to address but there is one fundamental shortcoming, which I would like to see corrected before the ms is accepted. I start from this, before going into the list of suggested smaller edits.
Internet, smartphones do not directly make people with access to those to become contributors of suitable data, even less “involved in research”. It is a common misconception in the citizen science discourse, including term “citizen science” that generating adequate data makes the generator a researcher. Science, research are analytical activities that typically require years of professional training, or years of self-education. It is a healthy thing that science is becoming less elitist, but I would strongly advise against dilution and inflation of terms “science” and “research” through unjustified and ungrounded inclusivity. People should get due credit for great data action, but they should not be named with names that does not reflect the reality of their contributions. My opinion conflicts with the established flattering term “citizen science”, which can be perhaps used once in the introduction, but I would anyhow request that entire manuscript is carefully checked for accurate use of terms “science” and “research” in contrast to public involvement in generating data, or similar. Lines 77, 113, and many places throughout the text.
Line 14 Consider moving emotional connection to the end of your list of good things about interactions
Line 24 Even though I agree, many would argue that a deterministic, reductionist approach is the way to go. Consider softer wording without “only” to stay factually accurate, or cite a ref to prove your point.
Line 69 Thanks for including a more accurate idiom from Irwin
Line 74 Amateur is a perfectly fine term that works without “so-called”. There is no need to hide the fact that people with and without professional training can generate evidence suitable for scientific analyzes.
Line 77 Please carefully check your ms for all uses of terms “science” and “research” see major comment 1 in the beginning.
Line 93 Consider stressing this point in the abstract
Line 103 This is a very welcome call. The manuscript would benefit from definition of the term ”interaction data” and comparison to similar, partly overlapping concepts such as co-occurrences, assemblages and the like. It is critical that data are collected in a neutral, fact-capturing manner, and removing, or minimally isolating, the interpretation of observations of 2+ species together, from the attributes that document such 2+ species data.
Line 109-110 Check your ms for consistency on your take to amateurs / non-professionals. Do you see the difference btw the pro and not? If yes, introduce both categories and stick to them throughout your study. See no border, but a gradient? Please say so and do no use such classes then. I am no sociologists, but I would expect a bit stricter logic in your human groups.
Lines 125-126 you contrast charisma vs. emotions. Again, as a non-professional in psychology, I suspect the former is a subclass of the latter. Consider checking professional literature and refer to a system you decide to follow. I think you touched upon a very important point of emotional drivers for citizen data generation, but you do not go deep enough to convince the reader that you know the levers that needs to be pulled here. E.g. mere admiration might not be enough, I agree, but you may also debate the static vs. dynamic nature of single species vs. interactions, and role of natural history curiosity about species doings. In addition, you seem to cover interaction where at least one party is a rapidly moving insect. As it must be very well known to the authors, systems were both elements are rapidly moving, or both (or more!) species are involve in a static / very slowly progressing interactions are not less interesting and can be used to attract public involvement, e.g. epiphytes (and you have nice hints towards such data in line 236). I recommend you broaden both the numbers of psychological anchors for public attention (surely explore in the context of the popular literature and making nature documentaries) as well as the number of interaction types to illustrate the potential to explore magnetism and potential of the interaction data.
In addition, as in abstract, you seem to start from what is your conclusion, not to drive the reader to this vision? This may be a matter of style: you make your point, and then write in support of it, which is fine. Alternative logic of your story maybe a gradual increase of arguments in support of your conclusion and then you close with you summary points. Both work, but the approach you take make a reader wonder if your points stand; to find out you have to read on. An observation, no need to take action, if you decide to keep the current logic.
Line 153 good points here, and I agree data collecting and data exploring interface would be a limiting factor, which will conflict with the call for simplicity, which is essential to broad uptake. I recommend you make a simple visual, perhaps a flowchart that would depict your promising and potentially limiting factors for a successful species interaction data collecting system for public. This may replace Table 1 in a more powerful and clear manner.
Line 162 Also good points, but a danger of staying too close to human and its pet & domesticated species will likely contribute to increase of species (interaction) observation biases by the increasingly urbanized population. There needs to be a way to incentivize collection of interactions data from the less observed taxa, areas, environments. I suggest you balance you great call for proximity and low effort with suggestions on how to develop the interest from the ”Shaun the Sheep biodiversity” to areas / taxa where data hunger is most critical. You come to this very nicely in lines 205-218, but stop just before suggesting what can be done there. Could you elaborate on this in a more practical, forward-looking manner?
Lines 202-204 For this to work as a valuable contribution to species ecology, I believe, it would be important to enable to indicate environment where interaction is documented. It is a well-known fact that at least animals and fundi in captivity (culture) or under stress are able to get involved in the interactions that are uncommon or unknown in the wild. If you agree, I suggest you address this point.
Line 242 onwards You sort of come close to the solution, but only to native and introduced ranges of IAS. I think cultivated / captive / cultured environments are neither native nor introduced ranges of the species present there, these cultivated species are simple kept there by the human for his needs (and not able to reproduce or disperse more or less freely, as is the case for the IAS). I think you need to make a connection between your call to document (start from?) the backyard interaction and these points on IAS. I feel this connection is not clear, around line 250 you can be more specific
Line 252 Magnitude implies you expect interaction data to be documented in a quantitative manner. Could you tell more please? Do you expect counts of interacting individuals, of measuring incidences or frequencies of some sort? With or without sampling effort? Magnitude is a very thought triggering word here. Please build on it.
Line 254 With my full support to openness, do you want to be a bit more specific here? Do you prefer maximum openness (CC-0 comes at cost of anonymization and reduced traceability), or FAIR, or? A more concrete recommendation would be appropriate. Looking at the Table A1 I see that you mix very open and not open systems there. I think you would make your point better if you indicate in Table A1 the access rules (add a column).
Line 265 Vizualizations are great, is there anything to offer for the less nerdy contributors? Children? Old people?
Line 267 Interaction data is not a good match for single species observation, but multi-species observation is. Single- and multi-species observation can have interpretations by the observer (or by someone else down the way data travels), and multi-species observations can be interpreted as observations. This is important to correct both conceptually (across the ms) and terminologically.
Lines 267-270 Ok, here you attempt to fix it, but still above sticking to inaccurate dichotomy. I am not sure if you expect to visualize single species and multi-species observations together? Or their interpretations? I really hope that these are not mixed in your vision, which is not very clear to me (playing a confused reader from outside the data world).
Line 271 Before new are invented, the existing network metrics from network, trophic, pollinator etc. ecology needs to be reviewed. I am sure many of existing metrics are very suitable for these needs, but if something is missing, please tell the reader first what is available.
Line 273 Which models? This and previous conclusion come suddenly in a loose connection with the preceding text.
Line 275 This, too, needs some ground to support the statement. Why humans out of 8M+ other species?
Line 278 correct to “collection of co-occurrence and behavioral data to deduce interactions”
Line 279 I disagree that I can directly. It can surely translate into larger volumes of suitable data, but lots of data do not translate into new insights automatically. Please adjust the statement to cover the corresponding development of research that would use such data.
Line 280 Another dangerous moment. Stronger observation experience makes a person a better (more efficient) observer, but does not guarantee understanding of ecosystems. I would recommend a quick read on theory of knowledge in support of my point.
Line 283 Also to wild habitats! The total budget in travel industry (if it recovers) must be much higher than a total fieldwork and expedition budget in research
Line 286 It is a great ending, but you might say a bit more in the main text how exactly. A sleek app or bright visuals in the browser might keep you hooked, but how do they feed your biological curiosity, and learning of the interacting species? A bunch of dropdown menus does not make the observer a deep and interested thinker about the system they look at. I am cheating here, as I do not have a ready answer myself, but since I am a reviewer, and you are the authors, I am looking forward to seeing the replies in the improved manuscript.
Table A1 Some of the major data systems that contain (not necessarily index) interaction data are missing. You say ”some” but do not explain your choice, not in caption, not in the main text. Also, please find the room in the main text to refer to Table A1 directly (from not only Table 1 or its more visual replacement). Also, see a comment on line 254 above.
Thank you for writing this important piece. I hope your paper is published soon, and your message is heard.