{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014757554462403373, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004216444132115249, 'mean_word_length': 5.780952380952381, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Current opinions in organ allocation

Existing methods of academic publication provide limited opportunity to obtain stakeholder input on issues of broad interest. This article reports the results of an experiment to produce a collaborative, crowdsourced article examining a current controversial issue in transplant medicine (hereby referred to as the “C4 Article”). The editorial team as a whole selected the topic of organ allocation, then divided into six sections, each supported by an individual editorial team. Widely promoted by the American Journal of Transplantation, the C4 Article was open for public comment for 1 month. The nonblinded editorial teams reviewed the contributions daily and interacted with contributors in near–real time to clarify and expand on the content received. Draft summaries of each section were posted and subsequently revised as new contributions were received. One hundred ninety‐four individuals viewed the manuscript, and 107 individuals contributed to the manuscript during the submission period. The article engaged the international transplant community in producing a contemporary delineation of issues of agreement and controversy related to organ allocation and identified opportunities for new policy development. This initial experience successfully demonstrated the potential of a crowdsourced academic manuscript to advance a broad‐based understanding of a complex issue.