ArticlePloS one2026
Knowledge coordination in a semi-closed IM network under time-critical conditions: Making distributed expertise actionable.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Semi-closed, cross-organizational instant messaging (IM) environments combine bounded membership with rapid communication across organizational boundaries. Building on research showing that expertise is distributed across professional networks, this study examines how journalists describe the coordination through which dispersed knowledge becomes collectively usable under time-critical conditions. A cross-organizational LINE group comprising Taiwanese television political journalists provides a revelatory case of digitally mediated epistemic coordination. Drawing on qualitative interviews with twelve participants across two experience cohorts, the study analytically reconstructs three interrelated mechanisms from recurrent patterns in participants' accounts: the situational redistribution of epistemic authority, the externalization of tacit reasoning into interpretable cues, and the distributed assembly of interpretive support. The first author's long-term insider experience served as interpretive context rather than independent evidence. Together, these mechanisms characterize digitally mediated epistemic coordination in the focal case: across participants' accounts, distributed expertise became visible, evaluable, and actionable under time pressure. Participants also retrospectively linked repeated participation in such coordination to shifts in professional practice, describing sustained exposure to peers' reasoning and evaluative criteria as contributing to the recalibration of their interpretive orientations. Taken together, the findings portray the focal LINE group as a consequential infrastructure for professional knowledge coordination under time-critical conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.