Establishing and Facilitating Large-Scale Manuscript Collaborations via Social Media: Novel Method and Tools for Replication

• Main Author: Acquaviva, Kimberly D (Author)
• Format: Book
• Published: JMIR Publications, 2021-05-01T00:00:00Z.
• Subjects: article
• Online Access: Connect to this object online.
• Notes: 1438-8871; 10.2196/25077
• Keywords: Computer applications to medicine. Medical informatics; R858-859.7; Public aspects of medicine; RA1-1270
• Source: Journal of Medical Internet Research, Vol 23, Iss 5, p e25077 (2021)

BackgroundAuthorship teams in the health professions are typically composed of scholars who are acquainted with one another before a manuscript is written. Even if a scholar has identified a diverse group of collaborators outside their usual network, writing an article with a large number of co-authors poses significant logistical challenges. ObjectiveThis paper describes a novel method for establishing and facilitating large-scale manuscript collaborations via social media. MethodsOn September 11, 2020, I used the social media platform Twitter to invite people to collaborate on an article I had drafted. Anyone who wanted to collaborate was welcome, regardless of discipline, specialty, title, country of residence, or degree completion. During the 25 days that followed, I used Google Docs, Google Sheets, and Google Forms to manage all aspects of the collaboration. ResultsThe collaboration resulted in the completion of 2 manuscripts in a 25-day period. The International Council of Medical Journal Editors authorship criteria were met by 40 collaborators for the first article ("Documenting Social Media Engagement as Scholarship: A New Model for Assessing Academic Accomplishment for the Health Professions") and 35 collaborators for the second article ("The Benefits of Using Social Media as a Health Professional in Academia"). The authorship teams for both articles were notably diverse, with 17%-18% (7/40 and 6/35, respectively) of authors identifying as a person of color and/or underrepresented minority, 37%-38% (15/40 and 13/35, respectively) identifying as LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, gender non-conforming, queer and/or questioning), 73%-74% (29/40 and 26/35, respectively) using she/her pronouns, and 20%-23% (9/40 and 7/35, respectively) identifying as a person with a disability. ConclusionsScholars in the health professions can use this paper in conjunction with the tools provided to replicate this process in carrying out their own large-scale manuscript collaborations.