Trends and Gaps of Netiquette Research: A Scoping Review Guided by the Prisma-scr Framework

Trends and Gaps of Netiquette Research: A Scoping Review Guided by the Prisma-scr Framework | 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 Systematic Review Trends and Gaps of Netiquette Research: A Scoping Review Guided by the Prisma-scr Framework Dr. Anchal Pandey, Dr. Shishu Pal Singh, Dr. Dipanshu Sharma, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7516371/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract In this article, an analysis of the existing literature is carried out. It focused on the netiquette with respect to country, year of publication, aim(s)/objective(s), methodological design, main variable(s), sample details, and measurement methods. This systematic review of the literature has been developed entirely according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA)-ScR scoping review. The initial search yielded 92 results of which 13 exceeded the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in detail. The result show that netiquette is a field of study that is still in its initial phase, though the empirical studies related to this in increasing as number of empirical studies was found to be maximum in 2024. Further, certain research gaps related to variables, methodology and measurement has been identified. The findings of the study can be significant for government, policy makers, institutions and digital designers and developers to integrate netiquette promoting features, this will be helpful for prioritize digital civility. Scientific Communication Publishing/Media Educational Psychology Information Retrieval and Management Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Information Retrieval and Management netiquette digital etiquette cyber ethics online ethics scoping review Figures Figure 1 1. Introduction The evolution of digital technology has reshaped the communication patterns among individuals[ 1 ] along the way of seeking and expressing ideas across cultural, physical, and social boundaries[ 2 ]. These patterns became more prominent especially during and after Covid-19 pandemic[ 3 ]. New norms that govern online behavior emerged and thus, ‘network’ and ‘etiquette’ together combined gave rise to a new term as ‘netiquette’ that refers to the guidelines to proper behave in digital environment[ 4 ] or etiquette governing communication on the Internet can be termed as netiquette[ 5 ]. Netiquette can be termed as code of conduct, implicit norms, values, principles, beliefs professional standards and responsibilities for online environment[ 6 ]. Netiquette is an ideal term which means that every person who is a part of the digital community must abide by the rights of others and follow some guidelines[ 7 ]. Educational sector also shifted to digital space and thus netiquette was recognized for civility as well as for maintaining academic integrity to promote learner engagement[ 8 ]. Observing appropriate digital social norms or netiquette has been far from simple. There exists certain inconsistencies in how netiquette are taught and practiced among students and educators across higher education institutions[ 9 ]. Moreover, it is necessary to adapt netiquette norms across different educational and socio-cultural settings[ 10 ]. Netiquette is an ideal term which means that every person who is a part of the digital community must abide by the rights of others and follow some guidelines[ 10 ]. Netiquette can be considered as complex term combining the behavioural, contextual phenomena and ethics[ 8 ]. There is a growing relevance of netiquette; the present study is based on scoping review to systematically map existing research on netiquette, identifying key themes, methodological approaches, and gaps in the literature. Employing the PRISMA-ScR framework, this review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge and inform future research directions. Scoping reviews are particularly useful for mapping large and diverse fields of study, identifying research gaps, and informing future investigations[ 11 ].To ensure methodological transparency and rigor, this review adopts the PRISMA-ScR framework an extension of the PRISMA statement tailored for scoping reviews[ 12 ]. 2. Methodology A scoping review or scoping study is a sort of knowledge synthesis that addresses an exploratory research topic by carefully examining, choosing, and synthesizing existing knowledge to map key concepts, types of evidence, and gaps in research linked to a given region or field[ 13 ]. A scoping review was undertaken systematically using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist[ 11 ]. This review of available literature did not require ethical approval[ 14 ]. PRISMA-ScR scoping review was conducted by various studies to examine the impact of family loss and separation on refugee youth in Toronto[ 15 ], analyze 62 studies on active learning strategies for entity recognition in natural language processing[ 16 ], focus on mobile health (mHealth) interventions for self-management of type 2 diabetes[ 17 ] enhance Professionalism Online(Netiquette) in Medical Schools[ 18 ], identify any alcohol reduction interventions for trans and non-binary people[ 19 ] and to assess the reporting characteristics of scoping reviews in dental public health[ 20 ]. This review paper is an attempt to understand the empirical studies on netiquette in the light of how netiquette is being studied, where research is concentrated or missing, and which themes are emerging as most salient in educational discourse through the PRISMA-ScR framework. The findings can support educators, policymakers, curriculum designers, and digital communication trainers in fostering ethical and effective online learning environments. Data from the studies analyzed included, such as the country of origin, year of publication, main objectives, methodological design, main variables, sample and sampling technique, major findings and implications in order to answer the following questions: RQ1. What is the status of empirical research on netiquette? RQ2. What methodologies, measurement tools and variables are emphasized to conduct empirical study on netiquette? RQ3. What are the major research gaps in terms of methodologies, variables and measurement tools to conduct empirical study on netiquette? 2.1. Search Strategy The research articles that were published between 2017–2024 were assessed at Google scholar (n = 63) along with the reference list (n = 29). Boolean Operators was used to search the studies as "netiquette or digital etiquette" AND "cyber ethics or online ethics”. This initial search yielded 92 manuscripts, although the final after adopting all the steps of PRISM-ScR consisted of 13 inclusive studies. 2.2. Inclosure Criteria The channeling of the studies to be the finally included in the eligibility criteria was carried out on the basis of the PRISMA-ScR framework[ 11 ] for carrying out scoping reviews. Certain definite criteria were setup for the inclosure criteria like, the research articles that were not peer-reviewed (n = 12), not empirical study (n = 7), having less than 3 citations (n = 9), and not available in English language (n = 6) were screened. Thus, total 32 studies were screened and in the next step eligibility criteria of these studies was seen on the basis of only abstract available (n = 4) and not related to education (n = 17). Lastly, 13 peer-reviewed, empirical studies, having minimum 3 citations, related to education, published in English language and full-text published from 2017 to 2024 were finally included for systematic review (Fig. 1 ). 3. Result Systematic review of the studies was done on the basis of country, year of publication, aim(s), methodology, main variable(s), sample detail and measurement (Appendix A ). Further, certain research gaps were identified related to variable(s), methodology and measurement. 3.1: Country: The included studies originated from various countries, reflecting the global interest in netiquette and digital norms. The countries represented in the sample include: Switzerland [ 21 ], India [ 22 , 24 ], Georgia [ 23 ], Russia[ 25 ], Saudi Arabia[ 26 ], United States[ 27 ], Germany[ 28 ], Spain[ 29 , 30 ], Jordan[ 31 ], Thailand[ 32 ], Philippines[ 33 ]. The 13 empirical studies reviewed span a diverse geographical range, yet some regions are more represented than others. European countries account for a significant portion of the research, with studies originating from Switzerland, Germany, Spain (2 studies), Georgia, and Russia—making up nearly half of the total. This suggests a sustained academic interest in online behavior norms within European digital cultures. In South Asia, India contributed two studies, indicating growing scholarly attention in the region, particularly in the context of its expanding digital user base. The Middle East is represented by Saudi Arabia and Jordan, while Southeast Asia appears through studies from Thailand and the Philippines. North America is represented by the United States. This regional distribution reveals both the global relevance of netiquette and the uneven attention across regions, highlighting opportunities for broader cross-cultural exploration, especially in underrepresented areas such as Africa and Latin America. 3.2: Year of publication: The 13 empirical studies on netiquette reviewed in this paper span a range of countries and publication years, reflecting the global and evolving nature of digital communication norms. The most recent surge in research activity is seen in 2024, with studies emerging from Switzerland, India (2 studies), Georgia, and the Philippines—suggesting a growing contemporary interest in netiquette across both Western and Asian regions. Spain also shows sustained scholarly engagement, with studies published in 2020 and 2022. Earlier contributions include Russia (2022), Saudi Arabia (2020), Thailand (2019), Germany and the United States (both 2018), and Jordan (2017). Notably, India and Spain each contributed two studies, indicating concentrated academic interest in these countries. This temporal and geographic mapping reveals a steady shift from early research concentrated in Western nations to more recent and diverse contributions from Asia and the Middle East. 3.3: Aim: The aim of the studies varied in different contexts. A broader exploration of user perceptions of digital social norms was investigated[ 31 ], The aim focus in India studies were found to be at cyber etiquette among prospective teachers considering different factors like gender, family background, caste and habitat[ 32 ] and the investigation of the preferences of students and teachers regarding the use of WhatsApp and Telegram for educational purposes[ 24 ]. Digital Citizenship Education was focused by analyzing self-reported competences among teachers, students, and parents across various school locations [ 23 ]. Study analyzed the concept of 'digital ethics' and its moral implications for university students’ online conduct[ 25 ], two study examined digital citizenship and etiquette among K-12 and undergraduate students, respectively [ 26 , 27 ], another study investigated online boundaries through student-lecturer interactions on Facebook[ 28 ]. Two studies focused on adolescent netiquette, empathy, emotional expression, and behavioral outcomes like phubbing and both were from Spain [ 29 , 30 ]. Study was conducted to examine how university students implement netiquette in academic contexts[ 31 ]. A study analyzed digital etiquette behavior among college students, with attention to gender and program of study[ 32 ]. Study was conducted for a comprehensive investigation into netiquette awareness, its influence on behavior, and strategies to enhance responsible digital interaction[ 33 ]. The aim of these studies can be seen in different contexts like studies on netiquette in educational contexts[ 22 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 23 ]; studies analyzing digital behavior and emotional aspects[ 29 , 30 , 32 , 33 ] and studies on theoretical or conceptual aspects of netiquette[ 21 , 25 , 28 , 31 ]. 3.4: Methodology: The netiquette studies were investigated across cultural contexts and employed varied range of research methodology, from structured approach to exploratory approaches. Only one study used exploratory method[ 21 ], exploratory sequential design[ 23 ], sociological survey approach[ 25 ] and descriptive survey method[ 26 ]. Methodological choices underscore a trend toward integrating sociocultural and behavioral analysis within netiquette research frameworks[ 25 , 26 ]. Quantitative methodology was prominently used across multiple countries[ 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 ], for detailed statistical insights into behaviors and attitudes toward netiquette quantitative and descriptive research approaches was used[ 22 , 24 , 31 , 32 , 33 ]. 3.5 Main Variables: Multifaceted nature of researches on netiquette was noted by analyzing the variables used to study. The diverse variables were: the characteristics, acquisition and management of netiquette and its role within social dynamics and interactional norms[ 21 ], cyber etiquette, gender, type of family(nuclear/joint), academic stream, caste-habitat(urban/rural)[ 22 ]. Awareness and understanding Digital Citizenship Education (DCE), Self-reported DCE competencies, DCE practices and digital activities, school context (urban/rural, stakeholder type)[ 23 ], Knowledge of digital citizenship, implementation of 8 DCE elements, digital commerce, digital communication, digital literacy, digital etiquette, digital law, digital rights & responsibilities, digital health & wellness and Digital security[ 26 ], perception of students and teachers towards educational messaging apps, effectiveness in learning, interaction and communication[ 24 ], Students' interpretation of digital ethics, ethical values and moral judgment in digital spaces, compliance with ethical standards, influence of age, social status, and residence on ethical online behavior[ 25 ], awareness and perception of students’ digital behavior, cyberbullying, digital footprint, digital privacy, netiquette, digital identity formation[ 27 ]. Injunctive norms (ideal digital behavior), descriptive norms (actual group behavior), emergence of student–lecturer digital contact (SL-contacts) and norm comparison[ 28 ]. Netiquette in adolescents, empathy, online emotional content, gender based differences in emotional behavior online[ 29 ], online emotional content, netiquette, pubbing, gender as moderating variable[ 30 ], implementation of netiquette practices, gender, student specialization (classroom teaching, special education), level of study (credit completion stage) [ 31 ]. Perceived digital etiquette behaviors, gender differences in perception, comparison across academic majors (management, accounting, IS)[ 32 ], awareness of social media netiquette, knowledge and understanding of online norms, online behaviors (e.g., privacy respect, verification, professionalism), correlation between awareness and behavior, influencing factors, recommendations for ethical conduct[ 33 ]. 3.6. Sample Details The samples in the reviewed studies are notably diverse in size, composition, and educational contexts. They range from relatively small groups, such as 59 university students[ 25 ], to large and heterogeneous cohorts, like the 1,954 participants[ 23 ], which included students, teachers, and parents. Educational settings dominate the participant pool in most cases, with samples composed largely of students or academic staff, such as 2,849 individuals, including both students and lecturers[ 28 ], and 250 prospective teachers selected through random sampling[ 22 ]. One study involved 150 participants, including both undergraduate students and teachers[ 24 ], reflecting a mixed educational demographic. Some studies focused exclusively on educators, such as 107 K–12 educators[ 27 ], while others examined adolescents, including 774 students aged 10–15 [ 29 ] and 953 students aged 12–17 selected through non-probabilistic convenience sampling in a follow-up study[ 30 ]. Higher education populations were also common, as seen in 267 undergraduate students[ 31 ] and 109 first-year college students[ 32 ]. Additional diversity is seen in studies using convenience sampling, such as the one involving young adults aged 22 to 39[ 21 ], or the 342 Filipino college students with a gender distribution of 55.8% female and 44.2% male [ 33 ]. 3.7. Measurement Quantitative instruments were used in quantitative studies [ 21 – 33 ], mixed [ 2 , 4 ], and qualitative study[ 21 ] like Content analysis was employed to examine participants' netiquette behaviors in depth[ 21 ], standardized scales [ 22 ], Likert-type survey tools [ 29 – 33 ], and online surveys/questionnaires [ 23 , 25 – 28 ]. Combination of standardized and self-developed tools was used by the mixed method studies[ 22 , 24 ]. 4. Identified research gaps After reviewing trends of researches on netiquette certain research gaps are identified. Identifying these gaps is essential to guide future research, improve theoretical frameworks, and develop more contextually relevant tools and strategies for understanding netiquette in digital environments. 4.1: Research gaps related to variables : Certain socio-cultural variables like caste-habitat[ 22 ] and rural/urban[ 23 ] have been focused, it can further be seen how digital politeness, expression or tone vary across culture. Digital Citizenship Education(DCE) element is explored[ 23 , 26 ], linking digital skills with platform fluency, device usage patterns to netiquette practices can also be explored. One study focused on perception of students and teachers towards educational messaging apps, effectiveness in learning, interaction and communication and focused on Telegram and Whatsapp[ 24 ], netiquette can be seen at different digital platforms like academic/educational/social/synchronous/ synchronous. Platform-specific netiquette can be explored. Ethics, moral behavior, online emotional content and empathy have been focused by the studies [ 29 , 30 ], other variables like digital self-control, digital resilience will be helpful to understand behavioural motivations online. Negative digital interactions can lead to stress, anxiety or digital fatigue but none of the study was found to focus on netiquette and wellbeing/mental health issues. 4.2 Research gaps related to methodology and measurement Mostly self-reported data through surveys or questionnaire was used as a measurement tool and so response bias or social desirability is possible, in that case real world naturalistic data through online tracking behavior can be helpful to understand the actual scenario of netiquette. Content analysis methodology has not been considered in the previous studies. Content analysis of social media will be helpful to determine whether the netiquette rules are followed or violated by people. There is a lack of longitudinal study on netiquette/digital etiquette. Technological advancements and educational interventional can effect netiquette awareness and behavior, thus incorporating longitudinal study will be helpful. For studying cross cultural or cultural influences on netiquette mixed method design will be helpful to understand the underlying motivations.. 5. Discussion The scoping review of empirical studies guided by the PRISMA-ScR framework on netiquette in the context of educational settings necessitates understanding of online ethics. The in-depth findings related to aims, methodology, main variables and measurement from the review of empirical studies from 2017 to 2024 highlights the growing concern of netiquette with significant advances, the paper further highlights the salient research gaps to suggest the research that could be conducted in future. Netiquette can be considered as a global relevant phenomena as the reviewed studies were conducted in a different countries like Switzerland[ 21 ], India[ 22 , 24 ], Georgia[ 23 ], Russia[ 25 ], Saudi Arabia[ 26 ], the United States[ 27 ], Germany[ 28 ], Spain[ 29 , 30 ], Jordan[ 31 ], Thailand[ 32 ] and Philippines[ 33 ]. It short, it is obvious that there is an uneven distribution of netiquette studies from geographical point of view as Europe and Asia dominates the empirical research on netiquette and limited contribution from America and Africa can be seen. The asymmetry can raise a question that whether netiquette practices are be seen through cultural specificity. Thus certain cultural inclusive researches are needed in this regard as cultural norms undoubtedly influence digital behavior[ 34 ] and for universal applicability of netiquette research it has to be globally represented and not to be grounded in regional dominant framework. To investigate the temporal trends in empirical researches on netiquette the review of related literature from 2017 to 2024 was done and it was seen that the year in which maximum published researches was found was 2024[ 21 – 24 , 33 ]. There can be many reasons behind this, one underlying cause may be as the pandemic began in 2020, every sector was digitalized including the educational sector as well thus the rapid adaptations and transitions were obvious. Many schools and universities by 2023 across the world established hybrid mode of learning. As the etiquette learning was focused during traditional educational system like chalk and duster period, by the integration of digital mode of learning, netiquettes became the expected digital norms. Many digital learning platforms (Zoom, Google Classroom, WhatsApp, Telegram, etc) integrated with the educational sector and thus by 2024 netiquette became the measurable concern and a critical aspect of digital professional. Netiquettes are dynamic in nature and changes with the changing digital environment thus the need for continuous research in this area is requires[ 35 ]. The aim of these studies can be seen in different contexts like studies on netiquette in educational contexts[ 22 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 33 ]; studies analyzing digital behavior and emotional aspects[ 29 , 30 , 32 , 33 ] and studies on theoretical or conceptual aspects of netiquette[ 21 , 25 , 28 , 31 ], it is necessary to reevaluate the traditional etiquette principles to suit the digital era[ 36 ] and the increasing inclusion of psychosocial constructs such as empathy, emotional content, and digital identity suggests a move toward more integrative theoretical models[ 37 ]. The dearth of research into these psychosocial outcomes represents a critical gap, especially given growing concerns around digital fatigue and online toxicity[ 38 ]. Quantitative methodologies dominated and this can lead to the social desirability bias and lack of contextual depth can result in an incomplete picture of the social and cultural factors influencing netiquette and significant realities of online behavior[ 39 ]. During reviewing the empirical studies related to netiquette no longitudinal studies were found, longitudinal designs could be invaluable in tracking how netiquette awareness changes in response to educational interventions or technological shifts[ 40 ]. Establishing and validating a comprehensive, cross-cultural netiquette assessment framework would significantly enhance research rigor and coherence[ 41 ]. Certain research gaps for future direction was identified as a platform-specific netiquette, academic platforms, it should further be addressed by drawing on media ecology and affordance theory[ 42 ]. None of the study focused on mental health and its intersection with netiquette to analyze anxiety, stress or digital fatigue along with these cross-cultural comparative studies remains spare even though culture strongly modulates communication style, tone, and expectations[ 43 ]. 6. Conclusion The concept of netiquette research covers a range between technology, communication, education, and ethics. As digital spaces continue to expand, understanding how individuals interact online—respectfully and responsibly—will remain a central concern. The present scoping review, according to the PRISMA-ScR framework, offers a comprehensive examination of netiquette-related empirical studies conducted from 2017 to 2024. Netiquette research has expanded from narrow explorations of online courtesy to encompass broader socio-ethical constructs, including empathy, digital citizenship, and online emotional regulation. This shift reflects a maturing academic discipline increasingly attuned to the complexities of digital life. Considering the results found in this work, it is consistent to conclude that netiquette is a field of study that is in its initial phase, though the empirical studies related to this in increasing as number of empirical studies was maximum in 2024. The findings of the study can be significant for government, policy makers, institutions and digital designers and developers to integrate netiquette promoting features, this will be helpful for prioritize digital civility. Educational curricula should systematically incorporate digital citizenship and netiquette, targeting different age groups and cultural contexts. Teacher training programs can also be emphasized for ethical digital communication, equipping educators with the tools to model and teach appropriate online behavior. References Kapoor, K. K., Tamilmani, K., Rana, N. P., Patil, P. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Nerur, S. (2018). Advances in social media research: Past, present and future. Information Systems Frontiers , 20(3), 531–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-017-9810-y McQuail, D. (2010). McQuail’s mass communication theory (6th ed.). Sage Publications. Dhawan, S. (2020). Online Learning: A Panacea in the Time of COVID-19 Crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems , 49(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239520934018 Shea, V. (1994). Netiquette . Albion Books. Merriam-Webster. (2023). Netiquette. Retrieved from https://www.merriam webster.com/dictionary/netiquette Assad, A., Kaleel, A. K., Zainal, I., & Wadood, R. (2024). Practicing Netiquette in Online Communication Between Students and Professors in Higher Education: A Systematic Review. Studies in Media and Communication , 12(4), 84–95. https://doi.org/10.11114/smc.v12i4.6903 Clark, T. (1994). National boundaries, border zones, and marketing strategy: A conceptual framework and theoretical model of secondary boundary effects. Journal of Marketing , 58 (3), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800305 Soler-Costa, R., Lafarga-Ostáriz, P., Mauri-Medrano, M., & Moreno-Guerrero, A.-J. (2021). Netiquette: Ethic, Education, and Behavior on Internet—A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 18(3), 1212. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031212 De Gagne, J. C., Cho, E., Randall, P. S., Hwang, H., Wang, E., Yoo, L., Yamane, S., Ledbetter, L. S., & Jung, D. (2023). Exploration of Cyberethics in Health Professions Education: A Scoping Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 20(22), 7048. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20227048 Kaczmarczyk JM, Chuang A, Dugoff L, et al. . e-professionalism: a new frontier in medical education. Teach Learn Med. 2013;25(2):165-170. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMAScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–473. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850. Peters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., & Khalil, H. (2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis , 18 (10), 2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167 Gong, E., Baptista, S., Russell, A., Scuffham, P., Riddell, M., Speight, J., & van Genugten, C. (2020). My Diabetes Coach, a mobile app–based interactive conversational agent to support type 2 diabetes self-management: Randomized effectiveness-implementation trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22 (11), e20322. Indian Council of Medical Research. (2022). Ethical requirements for systematic review and meta-analysis proposals: An addendum . https://www.icmr.gov.in/icmrobject/uploads/Guidelines/1724842157_ethical_requirements_for_systematic_review_metaanalysis_proposals_an_addendum.pdf Alamgir, A. (2022). A practice-based methodology on conducting a collaborative scoping review with PRISMA-ScR model for the Separated Refugee Youth Project. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports , 28(2), 30498. https://doi.org/10.9734/jsrr/2022/v28i230498 Kohl, P., Krämer, Y., Fohry, C., & Kraft, B. (2024). Scoping review of active learning strategies and their evaluation environments for entity recognition tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.03895 . Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.03895 Sinha, A. P., Singhal, M., Gupta, M., & Joshi, A. (2022). Scoping review using PRISMA-SCR on m-health interventions on self-care management of type 2 diabetes at home. Journal of Nutrition & Food Sciences , 12(6). Retrieved from https://www.longdom.org/open-access/scoping-review-using-prismascr-on-mhealth-interventions-on-selfcaremanagement-of-type-2-diabetes-at-home-93111.html Ng, D. K. W., Liang, J. Z., Wong, R. S. M., Raveendran, V., Phua, G. L. G., Fong, W., et al. (2023). Enhancing professionalism online (netiquette) in medical schools: A systematic scoping review. Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development, 12 , 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/23821205231224066 Montemayor, C. A. S., & Connolly, D. J. (2023). Alcohol reduction interventions for transgender and non-binary people: A PRISMA-ScR-adherent scoping review. Addictive Behaviors, 145 , 107779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2023.107779 Dos Santos, M. B. F., & Sarkis-Onofre, R. (2023). Reporting quality of scoping reviews in dental public health. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 23 , Article 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-023-01863-2 Heitmayer, M., & Schimmelpfennig, R. (2024). Netiquette as digital social norms. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 40 (13), 3334–3354. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2188534 Prasad, R. (2024). Cyber etiquettes of prospective teachers: An empirical research. Indian Journal of Educational Technology, 6 (2) Tomé, V., Sikharulidze, M., Lobzhanidze, S., & Urchukhishvili, G. (2024). Digital citizenship education: Perceptions on the concept, self-reported competences and practices of Georgian school society. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 16 (2), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.23860/JMLE-2024-16-2-6 Saikia, S., Asif, M., & Sultana, Y. (2024). Investigating socially mediated educational communication through WhatsApp and Telegram: Perception and preference of students and teachers. Indian Journal of Educational Technology, 6 (2) Krasnova, E. A., Kuzina, S. I., & Sagiryan, I. G. (2022). New academic culture: Digital ethics in virtual communication. In Culture, personality, society in the conditions of digitalization: Methodology and experience of empirical research (Vol. 2022). Culture, Personality, Society: XXIV International Conference Proceedings . Al-Abdullatif, A. M. (2020). Exploring students’ knowledge and practice of digital citizenship in higher education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15 (19). https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i19.15611 Martin, F., Gezer, T., & Wang, C. (2019). Educators’ perceptions of student digital citizenship practices. Computers in the Schools, 36 (4), 238–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2019.1674621 Linek, S. B., & Ostermaier-Grabow, A. (2018). Netiquette between students and their lecturers on Facebook: Injunctive and descriptive social norms. Social Media + Society, 4 (3), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118789629 Cebollero-Salinas, A., Cano-Escoriaza, J., Orejudo, S., & Íñiguez-Berrozpe, T. (2022). Netiquette, implication of online emotional content and empathy in adolescents according to gender. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 54 , 104–111. Cebollero-Salinas, A., Cano-Escoriaza, J., & Orejudo, S. (2022). Impact of online emotions and netiquette on phubbing from a gender perspective: Educational challenges. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 11 (1), 64–78. Arouri, Y. M., & Hamaidi, D. A. (2017). Undergraduate students’ perspectives of the extent of practicing netiquettes in a Jordanian Southern University. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning , 12(3), 94-104. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v12i3.7059 Promsri, C., et al. (2019). Perceived digital etiquette behaviors among college students: Gender and study program comparisons. Cross Current International Journal of Peer Reviewed Journal of Human and Social Sciences , 5(8), 250-254. Abadilla, J., Ostia, K. M., & Orong, M. Y. (2024). Awareness on social media netiquettes and online behavior among college students. Mediterranean Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences (MJBAS) , 8(4), 93-99. Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (2005). Foundations of intercultural communication . University Press of America. Heitmayer, M., & Schimmelpfennig, R. (2023). Netiquette as Digital Social Norms. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction . https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2188534 Oral, U. (2023). Netiquette: Fundamentals of Etiquette in Digital Communication. European Journal of Theoretical and Applied Sciences , 1(5), 833–847. https://doi.org/10.59324/ejtas.2023.1(5).70 Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other . Basic Books. Wiederhold, B. K. (2020). Connecting through technology during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: Avoiding “Zoom fatigue.” Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23 (7), 437–438. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.29188.bkw Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). Sage Publications. Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6 (3), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1145/301153.301168. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Supplementary Files Appendix.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted 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-7516371","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Systematic Review","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":509020213,"identity":"d0c43d10-2e0b-4ae6-bf99-0c40c9ee03ba","order_by":0,"name":"Dr. Anchal Pandey","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Indian Council of Social Science Research, Faculty of Education (K), Banaras Hindu University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"Dr.","firstName":"Anchal","middleName":"","lastName":"Pandey","suffix":""},{"id":509020214,"identity":"2ecf0dd2-48e2-411e-a78a-f742b7a9060f","order_by":1,"name":"Dr. Shishu Pal Singh","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Council of Educational Research and Training","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"Dr.","firstName":"Shishu","middleName":"Pal","lastName":"Singh","suffix":""},{"id":509020215,"identity":"4cff084d-54b1-486f-9edb-d05bdc1c8157","order_by":2,"name":"Dr. Dipanshu Sharma","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0007-9920-0166","institution":"Regional Institute of Education NCERT, Bhubaneswar","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"Dr.","firstName":"Dipanshu","middleName":"","lastName":"Sharma","suffix":""},{"id":509020280,"identity":"d7065549-4994-4604-9648-dd595f6b623f","order_by":3,"name":"Prof. Sanjay Sonker","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, UP, India","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Prof.","middleName":"Sanjay","lastName":"Sonker","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-09-02 10:07:37","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":true,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7516371/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7516371/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":90577385,"identity":"31ed8a1f-d8e3-4a62-83bd-94cdf768741a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-04 09:35:12","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":313108,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFlow diagram of PRISMA-ScR review about ‘netiquette’\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"figure1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7516371/v1/42ec3c68dc2e32481dd8d338.jpg"},{"id":90578749,"identity":"f55a1779-5710-4921-a837-4db45639edfe","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-04 09:51:12","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":845129,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7516371/v1/1eba84ae-674c-427a-8669-f458eafdc92a.pdf"},{"id":90577384,"identity":"d136e333-d551-4af1-97d0-16c639f0f015","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-04 09:35:12","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":32580,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Appendix.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7516371/v1/9c62900071c92a503011ccea.docx"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrends and Gaps of Netiquette Research: A Scoping Review Guided by the Prisma-scr Framework\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe evolution of digital technology has reshaped the communication patterns among individuals[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e] along the way of seeking and expressing ideas across cultural, physical, and social boundaries[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. These patterns became more prominent especially during and after Covid-19 pandemic[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. New norms that govern online behavior emerged and thus, \u0026lsquo;network\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;etiquette\u0026rsquo; together combined gave rise to a new term as \u0026lsquo;netiquette\u0026rsquo; that refers to the guidelines to proper behave in digital environment[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e] or etiquette governing communication on the Internet can be termed as netiquette[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. Netiquette can be termed as code of conduct, implicit norms, values, principles, beliefs professional standards and responsibilities for online environment[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. Netiquette is an ideal term which means that every person who is a part of the digital community must abide by the rights of others and follow some guidelines[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. Educational sector also shifted to digital space and thus netiquette was recognized for civility as well as for maintaining academic integrity to promote learner engagement[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. Observing appropriate digital social norms or netiquette has been far from simple. There exists certain inconsistencies in how netiquette are taught and practiced among students and educators across higher education institutions[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. Moreover, it is necessary to adapt netiquette norms across different educational and socio-cultural settings[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. Netiquette is an ideal term which means that every person who is a part of the digital community must abide by the rights of others and follow some guidelines[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNetiquette can be considered as complex term combining the behavioural, contextual phenomena and ethics[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. There is a growing relevance of netiquette; the present study is based on scoping review to systematically map existing research on netiquette, identifying key themes, methodological approaches, and gaps in the literature. Employing the PRISMA-ScR framework, this review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge and inform future research directions. Scoping reviews are particularly useful for mapping large and diverse fields of study, identifying research gaps, and informing future investigations[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e].To ensure methodological transparency and rigor, this review adopts the PRISMA-ScR framework an extension of the PRISMA statement tailored for scoping reviews[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eA scoping review or scoping study is a sort of knowledge synthesis that addresses an exploratory research topic by carefully examining, choosing, and synthesizing existing knowledge to map key concepts, types of evidence, and gaps in research linked to a given region or field[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. A scoping review was undertaken systematically using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. This review of available literature did not require ethical approval[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. PRISMA-ScR scoping review was conducted by various studies to examine the impact of family loss and separation on refugee youth in Toronto[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e], analyze 62 studies on active learning strategies for entity recognition in natural language processing[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e], focus on mobile health (mHealth) interventions for self-management of type 2 diabetes[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e] enhance Professionalism Online(Netiquette) in Medical Schools[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e], identify any alcohol reduction interventions for trans and non-binary people[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e] and to assess the reporting characteristics of scoping reviews in dental public health[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis review paper is an attempt to understand the empirical studies on netiquette in the light of how netiquette is being studied, where research is concentrated or missing, and which themes are emerging as most salient in educational discourse through the PRISMA-ScR framework. The findings can support educators, policymakers, curriculum designers, and digital communication trainers in fostering ethical and effective online learning environments. Data from the studies analyzed included, such as the country of origin, year of publication, main objectives, methodological design, main variables, sample and sampling technique, major findings and implications in order to answer the following questions:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRQ1. What is the status of empirical research on netiquette?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRQ2. What methodologies, measurement tools and variables are emphasized to conduct empirical study on netiquette?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRQ3. What are the major research gaps in terms of methodologies, variables and measurement tools to conduct empirical study on netiquette?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1. Search Strategy\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe research articles that were published between 2017\u0026ndash;2024 were assessed at Google scholar (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;63) along with the reference list (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;29). Boolean Operators was used to search the studies as \"netiquette or digital etiquette\" AND \"cyber ethics or online ethics\u0026rdquo;. This initial search yielded 92 manuscripts, although the final after adopting all the steps of PRISM-ScR consisted of 13 inclusive studies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2. Inclosure Criteria\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe channeling of the studies to be the finally included in the eligibility criteria was carried out on the basis of the PRISMA-ScR framework[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e] for carrying out scoping reviews. Certain definite criteria were setup for the inclosure criteria like, the research articles that were not peer-reviewed (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12), not empirical study (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7), having less than 3 citations (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9), and not available in English language (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6) were screened. Thus, total 32 studies were screened and in the next step eligibility criteria of these studies was seen on the basis of only abstract available (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4) and not related to education (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;17). Lastly, 13 peer-reviewed, empirical studies, having minimum 3 citations, related to education, published in English language and full-text published from 2017 to 2024 were finally included for systematic review (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Result","content":"\u003cp\u003eSystematic review of the studies was done on the basis of country, year of publication, aim(s), methodology, main variable(s), sample detail and measurement (Appendix \u003cspan refid=\"Sec16\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eA\u003c/span\u003e). Further, certain research gaps were identified related to variable(s), methodology and measurement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1: Country:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe included studies originated from various countries, reflecting the global interest in netiquette and digital norms. The countries represented in the sample include:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSwitzerland [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e], India [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e], Georgia [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e], Russia[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e], Saudi Arabia[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e], United States[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e], Germany[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e], Spain[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e], Jordan[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e], Thailand[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e], Philippines[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe 13 empirical studies reviewed span a diverse geographical range, yet some regions are more represented than others. European countries account for a significant portion of the research, with studies originating from Switzerland, Germany, Spain (2 studies), Georgia, and Russia\u0026mdash;making up nearly half of the total. This suggests a sustained academic interest in online behavior norms within European digital cultures. In South Asia, India contributed two studies, indicating growing scholarly attention in the region, particularly in the context of its expanding digital user base. The Middle East is represented by Saudi Arabia and Jordan, while Southeast Asia appears through studies from Thailand and the Philippines. North America is represented by the United States. This regional distribution reveals both the global relevance of netiquette and the uneven attention across regions, highlighting opportunities for broader cross-cultural exploration, especially in underrepresented areas such as Africa and Latin America.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2: Year of publication:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe 13 empirical studies on netiquette reviewed in this paper span a range of countries and publication years, reflecting the global and evolving nature of digital communication norms. The most recent surge in research activity is seen in 2024, with studies emerging from Switzerland, India (2 studies), Georgia, and the Philippines\u0026mdash;suggesting a growing contemporary interest in netiquette across both Western and Asian regions. Spain also shows sustained scholarly engagement, with studies published in 2020 and 2022. Earlier contributions include Russia (2022), Saudi Arabia (2020), Thailand (2019), Germany and the United States (both 2018), and Jordan (2017). Notably, India and Spain each contributed two studies, indicating concentrated academic interest in these countries. This temporal and geographic mapping reveals a steady shift from early research concentrated in Western nations to more recent and diverse contributions from Asia and the Middle East.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3: Aim:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe aim of the studies varied in different contexts. A broader exploration of user perceptions of digital social norms was investigated[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e], The aim focus in India studies were found to be at cyber etiquette among prospective teachers considering different factors like gender, family background, caste and habitat[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e] and the investigation of the preferences of students and teachers regarding the use of WhatsApp and Telegram for educational purposes[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]. Digital Citizenship Education was focused by analyzing self-reported competences among teachers, students, and parents across various school locations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. Study analyzed the concept of 'digital ethics' and its moral implications for university students\u0026rsquo; online conduct[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e], two study examined digital citizenship and etiquette among K-12 and undergraduate students, respectively [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e], another study investigated online boundaries through student-lecturer interactions on Facebook[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. Two studies focused on adolescent netiquette, empathy, emotional expression, and behavioral outcomes like phubbing and both were from Spain [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]. Study was conducted to examine how university students implement netiquette in academic contexts[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]. A study analyzed digital etiquette behavior among college students, with attention to gender and program of study[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. Study was conducted for a comprehensive investigation into netiquette awareness, its influence on behavior, and strategies to enhance responsible digital interaction[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe aim of these studies can be seen in different contexts like studies on netiquette in educational contexts[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]; studies analyzing digital behavior and emotional aspects[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e] and studies on theoretical or conceptual aspects of netiquette[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.4: Methodology:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe netiquette studies were investigated across cultural contexts and employed varied range of research methodology, from structured approach to exploratory approaches. Only one study used exploratory method[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e], exploratory sequential design[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e], sociological survey approach[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e] and descriptive survey method[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. Methodological choices underscore a trend toward integrating sociocultural and behavioral analysis within netiquette research frameworks[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. Quantitative methodology was prominently used across multiple countries[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e], for detailed statistical insights into behaviors and attitudes toward netiquette quantitative and descriptive research approaches was used[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.5 Main Variables:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eMultifaceted nature of researches on netiquette was noted by analyzing the variables used to study. The diverse variables were: the characteristics, acquisition and management of netiquette and its role within social dynamics and interactional norms[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e], cyber etiquette, gender, type of family(nuclear/joint), academic stream, caste-habitat(urban/rural)[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. Awareness and understanding Digital Citizenship Education (DCE), Self-reported DCE competencies, DCE practices and digital activities, school context (urban/rural, stakeholder type)[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e], Knowledge of digital citizenship, implementation of 8 DCE elements, digital commerce, digital communication, digital literacy, digital etiquette, digital law, digital rights \u0026amp; responsibilities, digital health \u0026amp; wellness and Digital security[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e], perception of students and teachers towards educational messaging apps, effectiveness in learning, interaction and communication[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e], Students' interpretation of digital ethics, ethical values and moral judgment in digital spaces, compliance with ethical standards, influence of age, social status, and residence on ethical online behavior[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e], awareness and perception of students\u0026rsquo; digital behavior, cyberbullying, digital footprint, digital privacy, netiquette, digital identity formation[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. Injunctive norms (ideal digital behavior), descriptive norms (actual group behavior), emergence of student\u0026ndash;lecturer digital contact (SL-contacts) and norm comparison[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. Netiquette in adolescents, empathy, online emotional content, gender based differences in emotional behavior online[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e], online emotional content, netiquette, pubbing, gender as moderating variable[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e], implementation of netiquette practices, gender, student specialization (classroom teaching, special education), level of study (credit completion stage) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]. Perceived digital etiquette behaviors, gender differences in perception, comparison across academic majors (management, accounting, IS)[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e], awareness of social media netiquette, knowledge and understanding of online norms, online behaviors (e.g., privacy respect, verification, professionalism), correlation between awareness and behavior, influencing factors, recommendations for ethical conduct[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.6. Sample Details\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe samples in the reviewed studies are notably diverse in size, composition, and educational contexts. They range from relatively small groups, such as 59 university students[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e], to large and heterogeneous cohorts, like the 1,954 participants[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e], which included students, teachers, and parents. Educational settings dominate the participant pool in most cases, with samples composed largely of students or academic staff, such as 2,849 individuals, including both students and lecturers[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e], and 250 prospective teachers selected through random sampling[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. One study involved 150 participants, including both undergraduate students and teachers[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e], reflecting a mixed educational demographic. Some studies focused exclusively on educators, such as 107 K\u0026ndash;12 educators[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e], while others examined adolescents, including 774 students aged 10\u0026ndash;15 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e] and 953 students aged 12\u0026ndash;17 selected through non-probabilistic convenience sampling in a follow-up study[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]. Higher education populations were also common, as seen in 267 undergraduate students[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e] and 109 first-year college students[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. Additional diversity is seen in studies using convenience sampling, such as the one involving young adults aged 22 to 39[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e], or the 342 Filipino college students with a gender distribution of 55.8% female and 44.2% male [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.7. Measurement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuantitative instruments were used in quantitative studies [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR22 CR23 CR24 CR25 CR26 CR27 CR28 CR29 CR30 CR31 CR32\" citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e], mixed [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e], and qualitative study[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e] like Content analysis was employed to examine participants' netiquette behaviors in depth[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e], standardized scales [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e], Likert-type survey tools [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR30 CR31 CR32\" citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e], and online surveys/questionnaires [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR26 CR27\" citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. Combination of standardized and self-developed tools was used by the mixed method studies[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Identified research gaps","content":"\u003cp\u003eAfter reviewing trends of researches on netiquette certain research gaps are identified. Identifying these gaps is essential to guide future research, improve theoretical frameworks, and develop more contextually relevant tools and strategies for understanding netiquette in digital environments.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e4.1: Research gaps related to variables\u003c/b\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eCertain socio-cultural variables like caste-habitat[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e] and rural/urban[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e] have been focused, it can further be seen how digital politeness, expression or tone vary across culture.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eDigital Citizenship Education(DCE) element is explored[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e], linking digital skills with platform fluency, device usage patterns to netiquette practices can also be explored.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne study focused on perception of students and teachers towards educational messaging apps, effectiveness in learning, interaction and communication and focused on Telegram and Whatsapp[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e], netiquette can be seen at different digital platforms like academic/educational/social/synchronous/ synchronous. Platform-specific netiquette can be explored.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eEthics, moral behavior, online emotional content and empathy have been focused by the studies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e], other variables like digital self-control, digital resilience will be helpful to understand behavioural motivations online.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eNegative digital interactions can lead to stress, anxiety or digital fatigue but none of the study was found to focus on netiquette and wellbeing/mental health issues.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e4.2 Research gaps related to methodology and measurement\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eMostly self-reported data through surveys or questionnaire was used as a measurement tool and so response bias or social desirability is possible, in that case real world naturalistic data through online tracking behavior can be helpful to understand the actual scenario of netiquette.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eContent analysis methodology has not been considered in the previous studies. Content analysis of social media will be helpful to determine whether the netiquette rules are followed or violated by people.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is a lack of longitudinal study on netiquette/digital etiquette. Technological advancements and educational interventional can effect netiquette awareness and behavior, thus incorporating longitudinal study will be helpful.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor studying cross cultural or cultural influences on netiquette mixed method design will be helpful to understand the underlying motivations..\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe scoping review of empirical studies guided by the PRISMA-ScR framework on netiquette in the context of educational settings necessitates understanding of online ethics. The in-depth findings related to aims, methodology, main variables and measurement from the review of empirical studies from 2017 to 2024 highlights the growing concern of netiquette with significant advances, the paper further highlights the salient research gaps to suggest the research that could be conducted in future.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNetiquette can be considered as a global relevant phenomena as the reviewed studies were conducted in a different countries like Switzerland[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e], India[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e], Georgia[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e], Russia[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e], Saudi Arabia[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e], the United States[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e], Germany[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e], Spain[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e], Jordan[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e], Thailand[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e] and Philippines[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]. It short, it is obvious that there is an uneven distribution of netiquette studies from geographical point of view as Europe and Asia dominates the empirical research on netiquette and limited contribution from America and Africa can be seen. The asymmetry can raise a question that whether netiquette practices are be seen through cultural specificity. Thus certain cultural inclusive researches are needed in this regard as cultural norms undoubtedly influence digital behavior[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e] and for universal applicability of netiquette research it has to be globally represented and not to be grounded in regional dominant framework. To investigate the temporal trends in empirical researches on netiquette the review of related literature from 2017 to 2024 was done and it was seen that the year in which maximum published researches was found was 2024[\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR22 CR23\" citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]. There can be many reasons behind this, one underlying cause may be as the pandemic began in 2020, every sector was digitalized including the educational sector as well thus the rapid adaptations and transitions were obvious. Many schools and universities by 2023 across the world established hybrid mode of learning. As the etiquette learning was focused during traditional educational system like chalk and duster period, by the integration of digital mode of learning, netiquettes became the expected digital norms. Many digital learning platforms (Zoom, Google Classroom, WhatsApp, Telegram, etc) integrated with the educational sector and thus by 2024 netiquette became the measurable concern and a critical aspect of digital professional. Netiquettes are dynamic in nature and changes with the changing digital environment thus the need for continuous research in this area is requires[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe aim of these studies can be seen in different contexts like studies on netiquette in educational contexts[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]; studies analyzing digital behavior and emotional aspects[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e] and studies on theoretical or conceptual aspects of netiquette[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e], it is necessary to reevaluate the traditional etiquette principles to suit the digital era[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e] and the increasing inclusion of psychosocial constructs such as empathy, emotional content, and digital identity suggests a move toward more integrative theoretical models[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e]. The dearth of research into these psychosocial outcomes represents a critical gap, especially given growing concerns around digital fatigue and online toxicity[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e]. Quantitative methodologies dominated and this can lead to the social desirability bias and lack of contextual depth can result in an incomplete picture of the social and cultural factors influencing netiquette and significant realities of online behavior[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]. During reviewing the empirical studies related to netiquette no longitudinal studies were found, longitudinal designs could be invaluable in tracking how netiquette awareness changes in response to educational interventions or technological shifts[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e]. Establishing and validating a comprehensive, cross-cultural netiquette assessment framework would significantly enhance research rigor and coherence[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e]. Certain research gaps for future direction was identified as a platform-specific netiquette, academic platforms, it should further be addressed by drawing on media ecology and affordance theory[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e]. None of the study focused on mental health and its intersection with netiquette to analyze anxiety, stress or digital fatigue along with these cross-cultural comparative studies remains spare even though culture strongly modulates communication style, tone, and expectations[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe concept of netiquette research covers a range between technology, communication, education, and ethics. As digital spaces continue to expand, understanding how individuals interact online\u0026mdash;respectfully and responsibly\u0026mdash;will remain a central concern. The present scoping review, according to the PRISMA-ScR framework, offers a comprehensive examination of netiquette-related empirical studies conducted from 2017 to 2024. Netiquette research has expanded from narrow explorations of online courtesy to encompass broader socio-ethical constructs, including empathy, digital citizenship, and online emotional regulation. This shift reflects a maturing academic discipline increasingly attuned to the complexities of digital life. Considering the results found in this work, it is consistent to conclude that netiquette is a field of study that is in its initial phase, though the empirical studies related to this in increasing as number of empirical studies was maximum in 2024. The findings of the study can be significant for government, policy makers, institutions and digital designers and developers to integrate netiquette promoting features, this will be helpful for prioritize digital civility. Educational curricula should systematically incorporate digital citizenship and netiquette, targeting different age groups and cultural contexts. Teacher training programs can also be emphasized for ethical digital communication, equipping educators with the tools to model and teach appropriate online behavior.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKapoor, K. K., Tamilmani, K., Rana, N. P., Patil, P. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., \u0026amp; Nerur, S. (2018). Advances in social media research: Past, present and future. \u003cem\u003eInformation Systems Frontiers\u003c/em\u003e, 20(3), 531\u0026ndash;538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-017-9810-y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcQuail, D. (2010). \u003cem\u003eMcQuail\u0026rsquo;s mass communication theory\u003c/em\u003e (6th ed.). Sage Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDhawan, S. (2020). Online Learning: A Panacea in the Time of COVID-19 Crisis. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Educational Technology Systems\u003c/em\u003e, 49(1), 5\u0026ndash;22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239520934018\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShea, V. (1994). \u003cem\u003eNetiquette\u003c/em\u003e. Albion Books.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMerriam-Webster. (2023). Netiquette. Retrieved from https://www.merriam webster.com/dictionary/netiquette\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAssad, A., Kaleel, A. K., Zainal, I., \u0026amp; Wadood, R. (2024). Practicing Netiquette in Online Communication Between Students and Professors in Higher Education: A Systematic Review. \u003cem\u003eStudies in Media and Communication\u003c/em\u003e, 12(4), 84\u0026ndash;95. https://doi.org/10.11114/smc.v12i4.6903\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClark, T. (1994). National boundaries, border zones, and marketing strategy: A conceptual framework and theoretical model of secondary boundary effects. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Marketing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e58\u003c/em\u003e(3), 67\u0026ndash;80. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800305\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSoler-Costa, R., Lafarga-Ost\u0026aacute;riz, P., Mauri-Medrano, M., \u0026amp; Moreno-Guerrero, A.-J. (2021). Netiquette: Ethic, Education, and Behavior on Internet\u0026mdash;A Systematic Literature Review. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, 18(3), 1212. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031212\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDe Gagne, J. C., Cho, E., Randall, P. S., Hwang, H., Wang, E., Yoo, L., Yamane, S., Ledbetter, L. S., \u0026amp; Jung, D. (2023). Exploration of Cyberethics in Health Professions Education: A Scoping Review. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, 20(22), 7048. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20227048\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKaczmarczyk JM, Chuang A, Dugoff L, et al. . e-professionalism: a new frontier in medical education. Teach Learn Med. 2013;25(2):165-170.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O\u0026apos;Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMAScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467\u0026ndash;473. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePeters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., \u0026amp; Khalil, H. (2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. \u003cem\u003eJBI Evidence Synthesis\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(10), 2119\u0026ndash;2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGong, E., Baptista, S., Russell, A., Scuffham, P., Riddell, M., Speight, J., \u0026amp; van Genugten, C. (2020). My Diabetes Coach, a mobile app\u0026ndash;based interactive conversational agent to support type 2 diabetes self-management: Randomized effectiveness-implementation trial. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Medical Internet Research, 22\u003c/em\u003e(11), e20322.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIndian Council of Medical Research.\u003c/strong\u003e (2022). \u003cem\u003eEthical requirements for systematic review and meta-analysis proposals: An addendum\u003c/em\u003e. https://www.icmr.gov.in/icmrobject/uploads/Guidelines/1724842157_ethical_requirements_for_systematic_review_metaanalysis_proposals_an_addendum.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlamgir, A. (2022). A practice-based methodology on conducting a collaborative scoping review with PRISMA-ScR model for the Separated Refugee Youth Project. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Scientific Research and Reports\u003c/em\u003e, 28(2), 30498. https://doi.org/10.9734/jsrr/2022/v28i230498\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKohl, P., Kr\u0026auml;mer, Y., Fohry, C., \u0026amp; Kraft, B. (2024). Scoping review of active learning strategies and their evaluation environments for entity recognition tasks. \u003cem\u003earXiv preprint arXiv:2407.03895\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.03895\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSinha, A. P., Singhal, M., Gupta, M., \u0026amp; Joshi, A. (2022). Scoping review using PRISMA-SCR on m-health interventions on self-care management of type 2 diabetes at home. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Nutrition \u0026amp; Food Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, 12(6). Retrieved from https://www.longdom.org/open-access/scoping-review-using-prismascr-on-mhealth-interventions-on-selfcaremanagement-of-type-2-diabetes-at-home-93111.html\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNg, D. K. W., Liang, J. Z., Wong, R. S. M., Raveendran, V., Phua, G. L. G., Fong, W., et al. (2023). Enhancing professionalism online (netiquette) in medical schools: A systematic scoping review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Medical Education and Curricular Development, 12\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;12. https://doi.org/10.1177/23821205231224066\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMontemayor, C. A. S., \u0026amp; Connolly, D. J. (2023). Alcohol reduction interventions for transgender and non-binary people: A PRISMA-ScR-adherent scoping review. \u003cem\u003eAddictive Behaviors, 145\u003c/em\u003e, 107779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2023.107779\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDos Santos, M. B. F., \u0026amp; Sarkis-Onofre, R. (2023). Reporting quality of scoping reviews in dental public health. \u003cem\u003eBMC Medical Research Methodology, 23\u003c/em\u003e, Article 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-023-01863-2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHeitmayer, M., \u0026amp; Schimmelpfennig, R. (2024). Netiquette as digital social norms. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Human\u0026ndash;Computer Interaction, 40\u003c/em\u003e(13), 3334\u0026ndash;3354. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2188534\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePrasad, R. (2024). Cyber etiquettes of prospective teachers: An empirical research. \u003cem\u003eIndian Journal of Educational Technology, 6\u003c/em\u003e(2)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTom\u0026eacute;, V., Sikharulidze, M., Lobzhanidze, S., \u0026amp; Urchukhishvili, G. (2024). Digital citizenship education: Perceptions on the concept, self-reported competences and practices of Georgian school society. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Media Literacy Education, 16\u003c/em\u003e(2), 71\u0026ndash;84. https://doi.org/10.23860/JMLE-2024-16-2-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaikia, S., Asif, M., \u0026amp; Sultana, Y. (2024). Investigating socially mediated educational communication through WhatsApp and Telegram: Perception and preference of students and teachers. \u003cem\u003eIndian Journal of Educational Technology, 6\u003c/em\u003e(2)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKrasnova, E. A., Kuzina, S. I., \u0026amp; Sagiryan, I. G. (2022). New academic culture: Digital ethics in virtual communication. In \u003cem\u003eCulture, personality, society in the conditions of digitalization: Methodology and experience of empirical research\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 2022). \u003cem\u003eCulture, Personality, Society: XXIV International Conference Proceedings\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAl-Abdullatif, A. M. (2020). Exploring students\u0026rsquo; knowledge and practice of digital citizenship in higher education. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15\u003c/em\u003e(19). https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i19.15611\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMartin, F., Gezer, T., \u0026amp; Wang, C. (2019). Educators\u0026rsquo; perceptions of student digital citizenship practices. \u003cem\u003eComputers in the Schools, 36\u003c/em\u003e(4), 238\u0026ndash;254. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2019.1674621\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLinek, S. B., \u0026amp; Ostermaier-Grabow, A. (2018). Netiquette between students and their lecturers on Facebook: Injunctive and descriptive social norms. \u003cem\u003eSocial Media + Society, 4\u003c/em\u003e(3), 1\u0026ndash;17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118789629\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCebollero-Salinas, A., Cano-Escoriaza, J., Orejudo, S., \u0026amp; \u0026Iacute;\u0026ntilde;iguez-Berrozpe, T. (2022). Netiquette, implication of online emotional content and empathy in adolescents according to gender. \u003cem\u003eRevista Latinoamericana de Psicolog\u0026iacute;a, 54\u003c/em\u003e, 104\u0026ndash;111.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCebollero-Salinas, A., Cano-Escoriaza, J., \u0026amp; Orejudo, S. (2022). Impact of online emotions and netiquette on phubbing from a gender perspective: Educational challenges. \u003cem\u003eJournal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 11\u003c/em\u003e(1), 64\u0026ndash;78.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArouri, Y. M., \u0026amp; Hamaidi, D. A. (2017). Undergraduate students\u0026rsquo; perspectives of the extent of practicing netiquettes in a Jordanian Southern University. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning\u003c/em\u003e, 12(3), 94-104. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v12i3.7059\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePromsri, C., et al. (2019). Perceived digital etiquette behaviors among college students: Gender and study program comparisons. \u003cem\u003eCross Current International Journal of Peer Reviewed Journal of Human and Social Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, 5(8), 250-254.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbadilla, J., Ostia, K. M., \u0026amp; Orong, M. Y. (2024). Awareness on social media netiquettes and online behavior among college students. \u003cem\u003eMediterranean Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences (MJBAS)\u003c/em\u003e, 8(4), 93-99.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen, G. M., \u0026amp; Starosta, W. J. (2005). \u003cem\u003eFoundations of intercultural communication\u003c/em\u003e. University Press of America.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHeitmayer, M., \u0026amp; Schimmelpfennig, R. (2023). Netiquette as Digital Social Norms. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Human\u0026ndash;Computer Interaction\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2188534\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOral, U. (2023). Netiquette: Fundamentals of Etiquette in Digital Communication. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Theoretical and Applied Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, 1(5), 833\u0026ndash;847. https://doi.org/10.59324/ejtas.2023.1(5).70\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTurkle, S. (2011). \u003cem\u003eAlone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other\u003c/em\u003e. Basic Books.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWiederhold, B. K. (2020). Connecting through technology during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: Avoiding \u0026ldquo;Zoom fatigue.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eCyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23\u003c/em\u003e(7), 437\u0026ndash;438. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.29188.bkw\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePodsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., \u0026amp; Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology, 88\u003c/em\u003e(5), 879\u0026ndash;903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBryman, A. (2016). \u003cem\u003eSocial research methods\u003c/em\u003e (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeVellis, R. F. (2016). \u003cem\u003eScale development: Theory and applications\u003c/em\u003e (4th ed.). Sage Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNorman, D. A. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. \u003cem\u003eInteractions, 6\u003c/em\u003e(3), 38\u0026ndash;43. https://doi.org/10.1145/301153.301168.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHofstede, G. (2001). \u003cem\u003eCulture\u0026apos;s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations\u003c/em\u003e (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"Banaras Hindu University","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"netiquette, digital etiquette, cyber ethics, online ethics, scoping review","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7516371/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7516371/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eIn this article, an analysis of the existing literature is carried out. It focused on the netiquette with respect to country, year of publication, aim(s)/objective(s), methodological design, main variable(s), sample details, and measurement methods. This systematic review of the literature has been developed entirely according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA)-ScR scoping review. The initial search yielded 92 results of which 13 exceeded the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in detail. The result show that netiquette is a field of study that is still in its initial phase, though the empirical studies related to this in increasing as number of empirical studies was found to be maximum in 2024. Further, certain research gaps related to variables, methodology and measurement has been identified. The findings of the study can be significant for government, policy makers, institutions and digital designers and developers to integrate netiquette promoting features, this will be helpful for prioritize digital civility.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Trends and Gaps of Netiquette Research: A Scoping Review Guided by the Prisma-scr Framework","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-09-04 09:35:07","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7516371/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"83ccd4d8-8dc6-418d-8482-35f36df4d438","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 4th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":54185098,"name":"Scientific Communication"},{"id":54185099,"name":"Publishing/Media"},{"id":54185100,"name":"Educational Psychology"},{"id":54185101,"name":"Information Retrieval and Management"},{"id":54185102,"name":"Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning"},{"id":54185103,"name":"Information Retrieval and Management"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-09-04T09:35:07+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-09-04 09:35:07","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7516371","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7516371","identity":"rs-7516371","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}