From Play to Participation: A Mixed-Methods Case Study of a Digital Platform for Low-Stakes Scholarly Engagement in China

From Play to Participation: A Mixed-Methods Case Study of a Digital Platform for Low-Stakes Scholarly Engagement in China | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article From Play to Participation: A Mixed-Methods Case Study of a Digital Platform for Low-Stakes Scholarly Engagement in China Junhao Du, Jiaxing Ji This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9156715/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study examines how a playful digital platform can serve as a low-stakes entry point to scholarly participation for students and early-stage researchers. Rather than treating informal academic platforms as defective substitutes for formal journals, this article conceptualizes them as digitally mediated environments in which users can experiment with authorship, visibility, and procedural aspects of academic communication under reduced risk. The study adopts an exploratory mixed-method case design based on a user survey (n = 72) and a six-day platform-analytics snapshot from Joker of Academics in China. The analytics record 21,000 active users, 36,000 new users, an average engagement time of 4 min 17 s, and 740,000 events. High-traffic pages include Published Articles, author-facing pages, and editorial pages, indicating that the platform does more than circulate humorous content; it also structures recognizable roles and participation pathways. Survey responses suggest that participation is driven by amusement, skills rehearsal, self-expression, and frustration release. The article argues that such platforms are best understood not as alternatives to formal academic publishing, but as low-stakes digital environments that widen first participation in scholarly communication. The contribution is deliberately bounded. The study does not claim long-term effects on publication outcomes or academic careers. It demonstrates, more narrowly, how playful platform design can lower barriers to scholarly engagement in digital education contexts. digital education scholarly engagement platformization humor early-stage researchers case study Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 1 Introduction Digital platforms shape not only how knowledge circulates, but also how users first approach scholarly participation. Research on the platformization of science shows that platforms increasingly reorganize the research life cycle rather than merely accelerating dissemination. At the same time, scholarship on academics’ social media use indicates that online participation is uneven: digital media may support dissemination, networking, and professional development, yet entry remains constrained by skill, confidence, and uncertain professional value. This entry problem is significant for digital education. Formal academic publishing presumes procedural familiarity, rhetorical discipline, and tolerance for rejection. For students and early-stage researchers, these requirements raise both technical and symbolic barriers. Many potential participants do not yet recognize themselves as authors, while digital education research has focused more heavily on learning systems, artificial intelligence, and analytics than on how users first encounter scholarly form. This article addresses that gap through a case study of Joker of Academics, a Chinese platform that adopts the visible language of journals while circulating through humor, play, and short-form platform logics. Platform analytics indicate that the case is not trivial. From 1 to 6 March 2026, the platform recorded 21,000 active users, 36,000 new users, an average engagement time of 4 min 17 s, and 740,000 events. High-traffic pages included Published Articles, Author Leaderboard, and Editorial Board. These metrics suggest that the platform combines playful content with recognizable structures of authorship and editorial visibility. The article addresses three questions: Who participates in this platform? Why do users seek publication on it? Which platform features convert playful attention into low-stakes scholarly engagement? I argue that Joker of Academics is best understood as a digital environment that lowers the threshold for initial participation in scholarly communication. It does not replace formal publication. Rather, it offers a reduced-risk setting in which users can rehearse authorship before entering higher-stakes academic venues. 2 Literature Review 2.1 Platformization and scholarly participation The platformization literature provides the broadest context for the present case. da Silva Neto et al. (2023) argue that platformization reshapes the research life cycle itself and propose a taxonomy of scientific digital platforms. Their account is useful because it redirects attention from isolated tools to infrastructural change. However, this literature concentrates primarily on formal or semi-formal research infrastructures. It says much less about lightweight, culturally playful environments that mediate users’ first encounter with scholarly participation. 2.2 Social media, professional development, and uneven entry Research on academics’ social media use clarifies the second part of the problem. Chugh et al. ( 2021 ) identify research dissemination, career development, and networking as recurrent motives for academic social media use, but they also note barriers related to skill, confidence, and uncertainty about professional value. Donelan ( 2016 ) likewise shows that social media can support professional development and networking in academic settings. These studies establish that online platforms are not peripheral to academic life. Yet they focus mainly on established academics or professionalized usage, rather than on the earlier stage at which students or pre-career users test whether they can inhabit an author role at all. 2.3 Humor as an entry mechanism Humor research sharpens the proposed mechanism. Chan and Udalagama ( 2021 ) found that many respondents were receptive to positive, non-aggressive humor in science communication, although such receptiveness did not automatically translate into endorsement of humor as a scientific norm. Cacciatore et al. ( 2024 ) further show that humorous science posts on social media can increase mirth and commenting behavior. These studies do not demonstrate that humor improves scholarly learning outcomes. They do, however, indicate that humor can reduce affective resistance and facilitate initial engagement. That is the level at which the present case operates. Gieryn’s ( 1983 ) boundary-work argument remains useful, but only in a restricted sense. It clarifies why such platforms matter symbolically: they do not erase the distinction between formal science and non-certified expression, but they may alter how users approach that distinction. In this article, boundary work is not treated as a master theory. It functions instead as a limiting concept. The platform under study does not overturn scholarly legitimacy; it reorganizes first contact with scholarly form. 3 Method 3.1 Research design This study adopts an exploratory mixed-method case design. The goal is analytic rather than population-level generalization. More specifically, the article identifies the participation logic of one digitally native platform whose combination of humor, article display, and role visibility makes it theoretically informative for digital education research. 3.2 Data sources The study drew on two datasets. The first was a questionnaire survey administered to users of Joker of Academics. The survey was distributed by the research team, and 72 respondents completed it. The survey data were used for descriptive profiling and for qualitative analysis of the open-ended item asking why users wanted to publish on the platform. The second dataset consisted of aggregated platform analytics generated automatically by the platform’s website analytics system. The analytics covered the period from 1 to 6 March 2026 and included metrics such as active users, new users, engagement time, event volume, traffic sources, and page views. In this system, an active user refers to a visitor who accessed the website during the observation period and satisfied at least one engagement criterion: an engaged session lasting more than 10 seconds, the triggering of a predefined key event, or viewing at least two pages or screens on the platform. Table 1 summarizes the respondent profile used in the descriptive analysis. Table 1 Respondent profile Category Group n % Educational status Undergraduate 37 51.4 Educational status Master’s student 19 26.4 Educational status Doctoral student 9 12.5 Educational status Other 7 9.7 Age group Under 18 4 5.6 Age group 18–22 36 50.0 Age group 22–25 19 26.4 Age group 25 and above 13 18.1 Discovery channel Douyin 63 87.5 Discovery channel Friend recommendation 4 5.6 Discovery channel Xiaohongshu 2 2.8 Discovery channel Skipped/other 3 4.2 3.3 Analytic strategy The analysis proceeded in three steps. First, the survey responses were used to describe the sample’s basic profile, including educational status, age group, and discovery channel. Second, the open-ended responses were analysed using inductive thematic coding to identify recurring motives for participation. Third, the platform analytics were used for descriptive triangulation. Rather than establishing causal effects, these aggregated metrics were used to assess whether the platform’s visible traffic structure aligned with the participation patterns reported in the survey. 3.4 Limits of inference The study is a single case. The survey sample is modest. The open-ended responses are brief, and the analytics window covers only six days rather than a longitudinal period. The article therefore does not claim that playful digital platforms improve later publication outcomes or academic careers. It identifies a lower-level mechanism: reduced-risk entry into scholarly engagement. 4 Findings 4.1 The platform organizes distributed digital attention The analytics report shows that the platform has moved beyond trivial circulation. During the six-day window, it recorded 21,000 active users, 36,000 new users, and 740,000 events, with an average engagement time of 4 min 17 s. The top pages were not limited to humorous pieces. They included Published Articles, the journal-style homepage, Author Leaderboard, and Editorial Board. This pattern matters because it shows that the platform does more than distribute jokes about academia; it stages a recognizable environment of articles, authors, and editors. Table 2 reports the core platform metrics and the high-traffic pages used in the analysis. Table 2 Platform analytics summary (1–6 March 2026) Indicator Value Indicator Value Active users 21,000 Average engagement time 4 min 17 s New users 36,000 Total events 740,000 Homepage active users 19,000 Published Articles active users 9,634 Author Leaderboard active users 3,191 Editorial Board active users 2,183 Top cities Shanghai, Hong Kong, Xi’an Key search/referral sources Direct, Bing, Google, Baidu Figure 1 presents respondents’ educational status. The sample is concentrated in undergraduate and master’s-level users, which is consistent with a platform that mainly captures first or early encounters with scholarly participation rather than established academic careers. Traffic sources reinforce the platform-native character of entry. Figure 2 shows that Douyin was the dominant discovery channel, far exceeding friend recommendation and Xiaohongshu. This pattern suggests that users are entering the platform through short-form digital circulation rather than through formal academic institutions. 4.2 Participation begins with play The open-ended survey responses indicate that the initial entry mechanism is not solemn scholarly ambition. It is play. Recurrent expressions in the workbook describe the platform as amusing, absurd, or suitable for playful experimentation. Humor is therefore not merely decorative. It lowers the symbolic cost of participation by allowing users to approach scholarly form without first claiming fully legitimate scholarly status. 4.3 Play opens a rehearsal space The survey material does not end with amusement. A second cluster of responses frames the platform as a place to practice: respondents mention trying their hand at writing, becoming familiar with tools and procedures, and learning how an article-like workflow operates. This evidence changes the interpretation. The platform is not only playful; it is also pedagogically relevant in a limited sense. It offers a rehearsal space in which users can try out article form, author visibility, and procedural participation under reduced risk. Figure 3 clarifies this function. High-traffic pages include not only Published Articles, but also Author Leaderboard and Editorial Board. Users are therefore not simply consuming content; they are navigating a staged ecology of academic roles. In digital education terms, the platform supplies affordances for role experimentation. 4.4 The platform also serves an affective function A third cluster of survey responses refers to pressure, discouragement, rejection, boredom with conventional seriousness, or the need to vent. This layer matters because it shows that low-stakes participation is not only cognitive or procedural; it is also affective. Some users appear to remain adjacent to scholarly expression precisely because the platform softens the weight of formal evaluation. 5 Discussion The main argument can now be stated precisely. Joker of Academics is neither a journal equivalent nor merely an entertainment account with academic styling. It is a low-stakes digital environment in which users can experiment with scholarly participation. This formulation is stronger than the original manuscript’s inflated claims because it matches the evidence. The earlier draft invoked epistemic hybridity, unsupported capital equations, and abstract institutional claims that exceeded the available material. That claim matters for digital education. If digital education research is concerned with how platforms shape participation, then this case identifies an underexamined pathway: users can first encounter article form, author status, and editorial symbolism through an environment that reduces anxiety, self-consciousness, and procedural uncertainty. Gieryn’s boundary-work perspective is useful here only as a limit. The platform does not erase the distinction between formal scholarly legitimacy and non-certified expression. It reorganizes how users approach that distinction. The broader implication is therefore modest but clear: playful platform design can create a bridge between digital attention and first scholarly participation. 6 Conclusion This article argues that Joker of Academics functions as a low-stakes digital entry point to scholarly engagement. Three findings support that claim. First, the platform attracts substantial distributed attention and organizes it through article pages, author-facing pages, and editorial pages. Second, users are drawn in first by play rather than by solemn academic obligation. Third, that playful entry opens a rehearsal space in which users can test authorship, visibility, and scholarly form under reduced risk. The conclusion is deliberately limited. This study does not show that such platforms improve later publication success, nor does it show that they democratize academia in any comprehensive sense. It demonstrates something narrower and more defensible: under digital-platform conditions, playful design can widen first participation in scholarly communication. Declarations Statement on Consent to Participate All participants in this study were fully informed of the research purpose, data usage rules, the complete anonymity of the survey, and the voluntary nature of participation via the pre-survey instructions. Voluntary completion of the anonymous questionnaire was deemed as informed consent to participate in the study. All data were fully anonymized prior to analysis, with no personally identifiable information collected or retained during the research. Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Consent to Participate declaration: not applicable Consent to Publish declaration: not applicable Funding None Author Contribution Junhao Du conceived the study, analyzed the materials, and drafted the manuscript. Jiaxing Ji contributed to manuscript revision and approval of the final version. Acknowledgments The manuscript was prepared from anonymized survey responses and aggregated platform analytics supplied by the platform team. Identifying information was removed for review purposes. Data Availability The data analyzed in this study are not publicly available because they contain platform-internal materials. Aggregated results used in the article are reported in the manuscript. References Bentley P, Kyvik S. Academic staff and public communication: A survey of popular science publishing across 13 countries. Public Underst Sci. 2011;20(1):48–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510384461 . Cacciatore MA, Yeo SK, Su LY-F, McKasy M, O’Neill L, Qian S. That’s some positive energy: How social media users respond to #funny science content. J Sci Communication. 2024;23(01):A02. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.23010202 . Chan A, Udalagama C. Exploring the use of positive humour as a tool in science communication: Do science and non-science undergraduates differ in their receptiveness to humour in popular science articles? J Sci Communication. 2021;20(04):A06. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.20040206 . Chugh R, Grose R, Macht SA. Social media usage by higher education academics: A scoping review of the literature. Educ Inform Technol. 2021;26:983–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10288-z . da Silva Neto VJ, Chiarini T. The Platformization of Science: Towards a Scientific Digital Platform Taxonomy. Minerva. 2023;61:1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-022-09477-6 Donelan H. Social media for professional development and networking opportunities in academia. J Furth High Educ. 2016;40(5):706–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2015.1014321 . Gieryn TF. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Am Sociol Rev. 1983;48(6):781–95. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095325 . Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviews received at journal 18 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 15 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 05 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 26 Apr, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 24 Apr, 2026 Editor invited by journal 01 Apr, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 23 Mar, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 23 Mar, 2026 First submitted to journal 18 Mar, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9156715","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":610746361,"identity":"a47fd368-64e8-4fd0-b7aa-33de850debe5","order_by":0,"name":"Junhao Du","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"河北工程大学","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Junhao","middleName":"","lastName":"Du","suffix":""},{"id":610746362,"identity":"0234fae2-c020-456c-99c8-db6cbd25c34c","order_by":1,"name":"Jiaxing Ji","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"河北工程大学","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jiaxing","middleName":"","lastName":"Ji","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-18 08:38:30","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9156715/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9156715/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":105518974,"identity":"3e1a4425-4759-453d-8104-e14171d9ff2d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-27 01:46:08","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":62240,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRespondent profile by educational status.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9156715/v1/9a1475e0db30f9cd6dc4c253.png"},{"id":105518976,"identity":"ad2f444c-82c2-4bc2-ace4-83b4d9112207","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-27 01:46:08","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":57168,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDiscovery channels reported by respondents.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9156715/v1/5b054e84174599078e6944b6.png"},{"id":105566326,"identity":"a3181528-3ce1-4c7f-8d7a-31765a1d0c75","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-27 12:56:09","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":64652,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eHigh-traffic platform pages by active users.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9156715/v1/24371e08855a02352f0dd986.png"},{"id":105570135,"identity":"43b3d7ae-ad52-452c-b01f-2b993a3044f0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-27 13:14:53","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":731751,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9156715/v1/00cbc0ad-51a8-497e-a7f8-296d4de4d0f9.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eFrom Play to Participation: A Mixed-Methods Case Study of a Digital Platform for Low-Stakes Scholarly Engagement in China\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1 Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eDigital platforms shape not only how knowledge circulates, but also how users first approach scholarly participation. Research on the platformization of science shows that platforms increasingly reorganize the research life cycle rather than merely accelerating dissemination. At the same time, scholarship on academics\u0026rsquo; social media use indicates that online participation is uneven: digital media may support dissemination, networking, and professional development, yet entry remains constrained by skill, confidence, and uncertain professional value.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis entry problem is significant for digital education. Formal academic publishing presumes procedural familiarity, rhetorical discipline, and tolerance for rejection. For students and early-stage researchers, these requirements raise both technical and symbolic barriers. Many potential participants do not yet recognize themselves as authors, while digital education research has focused more heavily on learning systems, artificial intelligence, and analytics than on how users first encounter scholarly form.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis article addresses that gap through a case study of Joker of Academics, a Chinese platform that adopts the visible language of journals while circulating through humor, play, and short-form platform logics. Platform analytics indicate that the case is not trivial. From 1 to 6 March 2026, the platform recorded 21,000 active users, 36,000 new users, an average engagement time of 4 min 17 s, and 740,000 events. High-traffic pages included Published Articles, Author Leaderboard, and Editorial Board. These metrics suggest that the platform combines playful content with recognizable structures of authorship and editorial visibility.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe article addresses three questions: Who participates in this platform? Why do users seek publication on it? Which platform features convert playful attention into low-stakes scholarly engagement? I argue that Joker of Academics is best understood as a digital environment that lowers the threshold for initial participation in scholarly communication. It does not replace formal publication. Rather, it offers a reduced-risk setting in which users can rehearse authorship before entering higher-stakes academic venues.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2 Literature Review","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Platformization and scholarly participation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe platformization literature provides the broadest context for the present case. da Silva Neto et al. (2023) argue that platformization reshapes the research life cycle itself and propose a taxonomy of scientific digital platforms. Their account is useful because it redirects attention from isolated tools to infrastructural change. However, this literature concentrates primarily on formal or semi-formal research infrastructures. It says much less about lightweight, culturally playful environments that mediate users\u0026rsquo; first encounter with scholarly participation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Social media, professional development, and uneven entry\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch on academics\u0026rsquo; social media use clarifies the second part of the problem. Chugh et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) identify research dissemination, career development, and networking as recurrent motives for academic social media use, but they also note barriers related to skill, confidence, and uncertainty about professional value. Donelan (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) likewise shows that social media can support professional development and networking in academic settings. These studies establish that online platforms are not peripheral to academic life. Yet they focus mainly on established academics or professionalized usage, rather than on the earlier stage at which students or pre-career users test whether they can inhabit an author role at all.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Humor as an entry mechanism\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eHumor research sharpens the proposed mechanism. Chan and Udalagama (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) found that many respondents were receptive to positive, non-aggressive humor in science communication, although such receptiveness did not automatically translate into endorsement of humor as a scientific norm. Cacciatore et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) further show that humorous science posts on social media can increase mirth and commenting behavior. These studies do not demonstrate that humor improves scholarly learning outcomes. They do, however, indicate that humor can reduce affective resistance and facilitate initial engagement. That is the level at which the present case operates.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGieryn\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1983\u003c/span\u003e) boundary-work argument remains useful, but only in a restricted sense. It clarifies why such platforms matter symbolically: they do not erase the distinction between formal science and non-certified expression, but they may alter how users approach that distinction. In this article, boundary work is not treated as a master theory. It functions instead as a limiting concept. The platform under study does not overturn scholarly legitimacy; it reorganizes first contact with scholarly form.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3 Method","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Research design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study adopts an exploratory mixed-method case design. The goal is analytic rather than population-level generalization. More specifically, the article identifies the participation logic of one digitally native platform whose combination of humor, article display, and role visibility makes it theoretically informative for digital education research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Data sources\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study drew on two datasets. The first was a questionnaire survey administered to users of Joker of Academics. The survey was distributed by the research team, and 72 respondents completed it. The survey data were used for descriptive profiling and for qualitative analysis of the open-ended item asking why users wanted to publish on the platform.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe second dataset consisted of aggregated platform analytics generated automatically by the platform\u0026rsquo;s website analytics system. The analytics covered the period from 1 to 6 March 2026 and included metrics such as active users, new users, engagement time, event volume, traffic sources, and page views.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this system, an active user refers to a visitor who accessed the website during the observation period and satisfied at least one engagement criterion: an engaged session lasting more than 10 seconds, the triggering of a predefined key event, or viewing at least two pages or screens on the platform.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e summarizes the respondent profile used in the descriptive analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRespondent profile\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategory\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003en\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEducational status\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUndergraduate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e51.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEducational status\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaster\u0026rsquo;s student\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEducational status\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDoctoral student\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEducational status\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOther\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge group\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnder 18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge group\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18\u0026ndash;22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge group\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22\u0026ndash;25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge group\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25 and above\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscovery channel\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDouyin\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e63\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e87.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscovery channel\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFriend recommendation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscovery channel\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eXiaohongshu\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscovery channel\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSkipped/other\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Analytic strategy\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis proceeded in three steps. First, the survey responses were used to describe the sample\u0026rsquo;s basic profile, including educational status, age group, and discovery channel. Second, the open-ended responses were analysed using inductive thematic coding to identify recurring motives for participation. Third, the platform analytics were used for descriptive triangulation. Rather than establishing causal effects, these aggregated metrics were used to assess whether the platform\u0026rsquo;s visible traffic structure aligned with the participation patterns reported in the survey.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4 Limits of inference\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study is a single case. The survey sample is modest. The open-ended responses are brief, and the analytics window covers only six days rather than a longitudinal period. The article therefore does not claim that playful digital platforms improve later publication outcomes or academic careers. It identifies a lower-level mechanism: reduced-risk entry into scholarly engagement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4 Findings","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1 The platform organizes distributed digital attention\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analytics report shows that the platform has moved beyond trivial circulation. During the six-day window, it recorded 21,000 active users, 36,000 new users, and 740,000 events, with an average engagement time of 4 min 17 s. The top pages were not limited to humorous pieces. They included Published Articles, the journal-style homepage, Author Leaderboard, and Editorial Board. This pattern matters because it shows that the platform does more than distribute jokes about academia; it stages a recognizable environment of articles, authors, and editors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e reports the core platform metrics and the high-traffic pages used in the analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlatform analytics summary (1\u0026ndash;6 March 2026)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndicator\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eValue\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndicator\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eValue\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eActive users\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAverage engagement time\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4 min 17 s\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNew users\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e36,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal events\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e740,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHomepage active users\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePublished Articles active users\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9,634\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAuthor Leaderboard active users\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3,191\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEditorial Board active users\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,183\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTop cities\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eShanghai, Hong Kong, Xi\u0026rsquo;an\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKey search/referral sources\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDirect, Bing, Google, Baidu\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents respondents\u0026rsquo; educational status. The sample is concentrated in undergraduate and master\u0026rsquo;s-level users, which is consistent with a platform that mainly captures first or early encounters with scholarly participation rather than established academic careers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTraffic sources reinforce the platform-native character of entry. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e shows that Douyin was the dominant discovery channel, far exceeding friend recommendation and Xiaohongshu. This pattern suggests that users are entering the platform through short-form digital circulation rather than through formal academic institutions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Participation begins with play\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe open-ended survey responses indicate that the initial entry mechanism is not solemn scholarly ambition. It is play. Recurrent expressions in the workbook describe the platform as amusing, absurd, or suitable for playful experimentation. Humor is therefore not merely decorative. It lowers the symbolic cost of participation by allowing users to approach scholarly form without first claiming fully legitimate scholarly status.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3 Play opens a rehearsal space\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe survey material does not end with amusement. A second cluster of responses frames the platform as a place to practice: respondents mention trying their hand at writing, becoming familiar with tools and procedures, and learning how an article-like workflow operates. This evidence changes the interpretation. The platform is not only playful; it is also pedagogically relevant in a limited sense. It offers a rehearsal space in which users can try out article form, author visibility, and procedural participation under reduced risk.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e clarifies this function. High-traffic pages include not only Published Articles, but also Author Leaderboard and Editorial Board. Users are therefore not simply consuming content; they are navigating a staged ecology of academic roles. In digital education terms, the platform supplies affordances for role experimentation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4 The platform also serves an affective function\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA third cluster of survey responses refers to pressure, discouragement, rejection, boredom with conventional seriousness, or the need to vent. This layer matters because it shows that low-stakes participation is not only cognitive or procedural; it is also affective. Some users appear to remain adjacent to scholarly expression precisely because the platform softens the weight of formal evaluation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5 Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe main argument can now be stated precisely. Joker of Academics is neither a journal equivalent nor merely an entertainment account with academic styling. It is a low-stakes digital environment in which users can experiment with scholarly participation. This formulation is stronger than the original manuscript\u0026rsquo;s inflated claims because it matches the evidence. The earlier draft invoked epistemic hybridity, unsupported capital equations, and abstract institutional claims that exceeded the available material.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThat claim matters for digital education. If digital education research is concerned with how platforms shape participation, then this case identifies an underexamined pathway: users can first encounter article form, author status, and editorial symbolism through an environment that reduces anxiety, self-consciousness, and procedural uncertainty.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGieryn\u0026rsquo;s boundary-work perspective is useful here only as a limit. The platform does not erase the distinction between formal scholarly legitimacy and non-certified expression. It reorganizes how users approach that distinction. The broader implication is therefore modest but clear: playful platform design can create a bridge between digital attention and first scholarly participation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6 Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis article argues that Joker of Academics functions as a low-stakes digital entry point to scholarly engagement. Three findings support that claim. First, the platform attracts substantial distributed attention and organizes it through article pages, author-facing pages, and editorial pages. Second, users are drawn in first by play rather than by solemn academic obligation. Third, that playful entry opens a rehearsal space in which users can test authorship, visibility, and scholarly form under reduced risk.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe conclusion is deliberately limited. This study does not show that such platforms improve later publication success, nor does it show that they democratize academia in any comprehensive sense. It demonstrates something narrower and more defensible: under digital-platform conditions, playful design can widen first participation in scholarly communication.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eStatement on Consent to Participate All participants in this study were fully informed of the research purpose, data usage rules, the complete anonymity of the survey, and the voluntary nature of participation via the pre-survey instructions. Voluntary completion of the anonymous questionnaire was deemed as informed consent to participate in the study. All data were fully anonymized prior to analysis, with no personally identifiable information collected or retained during the research.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eConsent to Participate\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003edeclaration: not applicable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Publish\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003edeclaration: not applicable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eNone\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eJunhao Du conceived the study, analyzed the materials, and drafted the manuscript. Jiaxing Ji contributed to manuscript revision and approval of the final version.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgments\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe manuscript was prepared from anonymized survey responses and aggregated platform analytics supplied by the platform team. Identifying information was removed for review purposes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe data analyzed in this study are not publicly available because they contain platform-internal materials. Aggregated results used in the article are reported in the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBentley P, Kyvik S. Academic staff and public communication: A survey of popular science publishing across 13 countries. Public Underst Sci. 2011;20(1):48\u0026ndash;63. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510384461\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0963662510384461\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCacciatore MA, Yeo SK, Su LY-F, McKasy M, O\u0026rsquo;Neill L, Qian S. That\u0026rsquo;s some positive energy: How social media users respond to #funny science content. J Sci Communication. 2024;23(01):A02. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.22323/2.23010202\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.22323/2.23010202\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChan A, Udalagama C. Exploring the use of positive humour as a tool in science communication: Do science and non-science undergraduates differ in their receptiveness to humour in popular science articles? J Sci Communication. 2021;20(04):A06. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.22323/2.20040206\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.22323/2.20040206\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChugh R, Grose R, Macht SA. Social media usage by higher education academics: A scoping review of the literature. Educ Inform Technol. 2021;26:983\u0026ndash;99. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10288-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10639-020-10288-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eda Silva Neto VJ, Chiarini T. The Platformization of Science: Towards a Scientific Digital Platform Taxonomy. Minerva. 2023;61:1\u0026ndash;29.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-022-09477-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11024-022-09477-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDonelan H. Social media for professional development and networking opportunities in academia. J Furth High Educ. 2016;40(5):706\u0026ndash;29. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2015.1014321\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/0309877X.2015.1014321\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGieryn TF. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Am Sociol Rev. 1983;48(6):781\u0026ndash;95. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/2095325\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2307/2095325\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"digital education, scholarly engagement, platformization, humor, early-stage researchers, case study","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9156715/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9156715/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examines how a playful digital platform can serve as a low-stakes entry point to scholarly participation for students and early-stage researchers. Rather than treating informal academic platforms as defective substitutes for formal journals, this article conceptualizes them as digitally mediated environments in which users can experiment with authorship, visibility, and procedural aspects of academic communication under reduced risk. The study adopts an exploratory mixed-method case design based on a user survey (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;72) and a six-day platform-analytics snapshot from Joker of Academics in China. The analytics record 21,000 active users, 36,000 new users, an average engagement time of 4 min 17 s, and 740,000 events. High-traffic pages include Published Articles, author-facing pages, and editorial pages, indicating that the platform does more than circulate humorous content; it also structures recognizable roles and participation pathways. Survey responses suggest that participation is driven by amusement, skills rehearsal, self-expression, and frustration release. The article argues that such platforms are best understood not as alternatives to formal academic publishing, but as low-stakes digital environments that widen first participation in scholarly communication. The contribution is deliberately bounded. The study does not claim long-term effects on publication outcomes or academic careers. It demonstrates, more narrowly, how playful platform design can lower barriers to scholarly engagement in digital education contexts.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"From Play to Participation: A Mixed-Methods Case Study of a Digital Platform for Low-Stakes Scholarly Engagement in China","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-27 01:45:51","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9156715/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-18T16:42:32+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"56286362698845580743747372763705197580","date":"2026-05-15T12:24:57+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"69472098939854107578521296979903497581","date":"2026-05-05T19:06:26+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"113930804726801988065973196634888739856","date":"2026-04-26T22:40:12+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-04-24T15:49:53+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2026-04-01T09:28:25+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-03-23T13:44:28+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-03-23T13:43:35+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Education","date":"2026-03-18T08:27:37+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"345db28d-e8d6-4a4e-8a1b-2ccb947f5e40","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 27th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-18T16:42:32+00:00","index":82,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"56286362698845580743747372763705197580","date":"2026-05-15T12:24:57+00:00","index":75,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"69472098939854107578521296979903497581","date":"2026-05-05T19:06:26+00:00","index":64,"fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-24T16:08:05+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-27 01:45:51","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9156715","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9156715","identity":"rs-9156715","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}