Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36704700›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022

The use of Messenger for research collaboration: An auto-ethnographic study.

Dennis Alonzo, Cherry Zin Oo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Dennis AlonzoSchool of Education, University of New South Wales, Kensington, NSW, Australia.
Cherry Zin OoDepartment of Educational Psychology, Yangon University of Education, Yangon, Myanmar.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of social media for the collaboration of academics has been increasing in recent years. However, there are no reported studies on using Messenger as a collaborative platform to write and publish journal articles and apply for research and development grants. We use an auto-ethnography to reflect on our experiences over the last 3 years, using Messenger as our medium for our ongoing collaborative research activities. Our results highlight the benefits and challenges of using social media for this engagement. The capabilities of Messenger, as opposed to traditional correspondence through email, have paved our preference to use this platform. We can engage in dynamic collaboration and focussed discussion with less formal communication conventions through Messenger. In addition, the extra features, including easy phone calls, sending links, resources and screenshots, and using emojis and stickers for more socially cohesive interactions, are valued features of Messenger. We used the activity theory to highlight the interrelationships of factors (i.e., personal, social-emotional, structural, technological, and organisational) contributing to the success of collaborative academic activities, including the successful publication of journal articles and securing research and development grants. The findings of our study significantly contribute to understanding how social media can be effectively used for academic engagement.

Indexed as

academic workcollaborationMessengerpublishingsocial media

Identifiers

PMID36704700
PMCPMC9872512

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.