Citizen Science (CS) has greatly expanded as a collaborative model of knowledge co-production, often outside traditional scientific institutions. However, CS potential to enable new forms of collective governance of scientific research remains largely unexplored. At least, two confronting standpoints dominate the debate around CS: from mere crowdsourcing perspectives supported by debates over cost-effectiveness of massive data collection, to more participatory views, which understand CS as a means to democratize science and challenge current academic structures. Although most accounts of CS focus on crowdsourcing participatory formats, the discussion around CS governance mechanisms that go beyond crowdsourcing models is unfolding. Understanding CS as contributing to constitute science as a commons requires specific conditions that must be met, as well as continuous reflection and discussion. This study provides a framework for exploring the commons-like formations that characterize CS approaches, as already applied in the study of commons based peer production (CBPP). This framework of commons’ qualities considers openness at the governance level, open knowledge at technological and data levels, and social responsibility and impact of CS projects. The framework was tested and informed empirically with the analysis of 5 digital mapping CS projects, to provide points of comparison and illustration. Data was gathered through web collection, based on a netnographic method. The results show that, overall, the dimensions considered prove useful to shed light on the commons-like formations that characterize CS. They further point to the interplay of several institutional, legal, and practical dimensions in constructing and governing openness in citizen science. The preliminary adaptation of the framework is intended to place in an analytical context the debate around CS potential to enable new forms of science governance of knowledge co-production.