• Are you aware of the current efforts by researchers on Bluesky to build a new researchers platform on ATProto? (Forget the project name at the moment)

    If not, same handle over there, I can get you in touch with them. Or hit up Boris, he knows everyone and is happy to make connections

    There's also a full day at the upcoming conference on ATProto & scientific related things. I think they com on discourse more (?)

  • @criomsoneer: Check out Open Science Network (Bonfire), they are also doing interesting work in this space! https://openscience.network/
  • Integrate them peer review process and you’ve got a disrupter
    • Peer review should be disrupted, but doing peer review via social media is not the way to go.
      • Has a bit of a leg up in that if it's only academics commenting, it would probably be way more usable than typical social media, maybe even outright good.
    • Right? This is kind of the dream.
    • Calling it peer review suggests gatekeeping. I suggest no gatekeepind just let any academic post a review, and maybe upvote/downvote and let crowdsourcing handle the rest.
      • While I appreciate no gatekeeping, the other side of the coin is gatekeeping via bots (vote manipulation).

        Something like rotten tomatoes could be useful. Have a list of "verified" users (critic score) in a separate voting column as anon users (audience score).

        This will often serve useful in highly controversial situations to parse common narratives.

  • Yes publishing is broken, but academics are the last people to jump onto platforms...they never left email. If you want to change the publishing game, turn publishing into email.