@Article{info:doi/10.2196/25077,
author="Acquaviva, Kimberly D",
title="Establishing and Facilitating Large-Scale Manuscript Collaborations via Social Media: Novel Method and Tools for Replication",
journal="J Med Internet Res",
year="2021",
month="May",
day="17",
volume="23",
number="5",
pages="e25077",
keywords="social media; crowdsourcing; collaboration; health professions; medicine; scholarship; literature; research",
abstract="Background: Authorship 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. Objective: This paper describes a novel method for establishing and facilitating large-scale manuscript collaborations via social media. Methods: On 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. Results: The 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. Conclusions: Scholars 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. ",
issn="1438-8871",
doi="10.2196/25077",
url="https://www.jmir.org/2021/5/e25077",
url="https://doi.org/10.2196/25077",
url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33999002"
}