[HN Gopher] Show HN: Octosphere, a tool to decentralise scientif...
___________________________________________________________________
Show HN: Octosphere, a tool to decentralise scientific publishing
Hey HN! I went to an ATProto meetup last week, and as a burnt-out
semi-academic who hates academic publishing, I thought there might
be a cool opportunity to build on Octopus
(https://www.octopus.ac/), so I got a bit excited over the weekend
and built Octosphere. Hopefully some of you find it interesting!
Blog post here:
https://andreasthinks.me/posts/octosphere/octosphere.html
Author : crimsoneer
Score : 36 points
Date : 2026-02-03 17:11 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (octosphere.social)
(TXT) w3m dump (octosphere.social)
| verdverm wrote:
| 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 (?)
| crimsoneer wrote:
| Ooh no, please do, but would love to hear more!
| verdverm wrote:
| Go chime in and share your work here:
| https://discourse.atprotocol.community/t/about-the-
| atproto-s...
|
| That'll get us connected off HN
|
| I _think_ Cosmik is the group I was thinking of that has also
| put out some initial poc like yourself
| Johnny_Bonk wrote:
| id also be curious to follow this if you have any links or
| resources
| verdverm wrote:
| This is probably a good jumping off point
|
| https://discourse.atprotocol.community/t/about-the-
| atproto-s...
| gnarlouse wrote:
| Integrate them peer review process and you've got a disrupter
| crimsoneer wrote:
| Right? This is kind of the dream.
| mlpoknbji wrote:
| Peer review should be disrupted, but doing peer review via
| social media is not the way to go.
| perching_aix wrote:
| 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.
| naasking wrote:
| 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.
| staplers wrote:
| 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.
| 11101010010001 wrote:
| 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.
| rsolva wrote:
| @criomsoneer: Check out Open Science Network (Bonfire), they are
| also doing interesting work in this space!
| https://openscience.network/
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-02-03 23:00 UTC)