Oh no, Zenodo!
05.03.2026 17:32
👍 2
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Oh no, Zenodo!
Made some #bluesky profile cards for @mystmd.org via the widget interface (widget doesn't feel like right interface, but a handy starting point). Just needed a fetch call to api.bsky.app 🤩 wrote more about it here. more #bsky / #atproto experiments coming.
opensci.dev/articles/blu...
Toothpaste! Didn't see that coming.
@curvenote.com would be happy to help here if you want as well if you want!
Thanks for the note @teonbrooks.com ... have been diving into this and changing my thinking about OXA a bit over the last week and how it can interoperate with at-proto and @standard.site.
Adding an `anywidget` style/based directive & renderer into the core @mystmd.org stack is a big win for custom interactivity and extensibility.
My contribution this week: to round off the first cut implementation - based on what've had in prod at @curvenote.com.
opensci.dev/articles/ups...
🚀 To move beyond end-point peer review, PREreview & @continuous.foundation are co-leading the Modular Peer Review Working Group.
60+ people from diverse backgrounds and regions have joined this space for co-creation.
Take a look at their first session outputs and follow along👇
bit.ly/modular-wg
Twitter/bsky/at.proto is a different analogy.
Music is a more abstract analogy though: asking "what is a song" is different than thinking we have to "put science in a tweet"
Getting at what that modularity is, is the main idea of this piece. :)
This is exactly why this matters for science **now**. We have a chance to apply some hind/foresight and to build modularity with open standards, author ownership, and public-good governance, rather than retrofitting those concerns after the fact.
What I think is worth learning from is the structural shift: modularity changed how value moved through the system, for better and for worse. It made new things possible, but the outcomes depended on who controlled the infrastructure and how incentives were set.
Yeah, tried in a few spots to point that out, but maybe not hard enough. Streaming is not a model science should copy wholesale, and certainly not arguing that science should “be Spotify.”
:)
I think if nothing else if it breaks the default assumption that the paper == song, and asks the question .. "well, what actually is a song then, and how big should it be?"
That is progress! As it starts to change how we communicate and recombine knowledge!
I am thinking about this mostly in data and computational fields of science. So curious if this does break down going into social sciences...
Unbundling, as we are thinking about it, is closer to making those internal structures first-class and linkable, not atomizing meaning into isolated fragments. The “paper” remains essential for synthesis and argument — it just stops being the **only** entry point.
In practice, we already engage with these selectively: we cite a specific figure, reuse a method/protocol, or interrogate one result without rereading the full narrative every time.
Most papers already contain multiple semi-independent units of work. A typical ~10-page paper often includes several experiments, analyses, or datasets, each with its **own** methods, assumptions, and results.
Thanks for the link, the "album era" was 1960s-->2005.
I guess in the same way scientific figures and data sets have "always been" unbundled (shared in a lab, with colleagues, or dropped in a data repository). But very much the mainstream way to share in science remains bundled.
In a digital world, we are increasingly constrained by boundaries that no longer make sense. In a world of artificial intelligence, what does the bundle prevent us from seeing?
chat is currently a black box, it should be a gateway in science to discovering and interacting with scientific objects.
Very different intended audience/depth with the @continuous.foundation article!!
Another one that I am working on, but tries to actually go into what a "Knowledge Object" is and also the importance of these standards from a social perspective:
oxa.dev/articles/sci...
🤣
There is a lot more work that can be done to make the 'xivs better. Still early days for the preprint servers, and so much potential.
Deleted Prime, Audible, ChatGPT, Instagram.
www.resistandunsubscribe.com
Scientific publishing is still organized around bundles built for print. We use music’s shift from albums to streaming to argue why access and unbundling aren’t enough.
Shared standards are the missing layer for reusable, trustworthy science.
articles.continuousfoundation.org/articles/how...
Nice to see all of the updates to myst-theme being pushed forward over the last few weeks.
Congrats to the team and thanks to @choldgraf.com for leading a lot of these changes. 🚀
Exciting developments for running @mystmd in @jupyter.org hubs.
Special thanks to @row1.ca , @tracykteal.bsky.social , Roseline Dzekem Dine, @rosariorogel.bsky.social and Noemi Gonzalez-Rocha for their contribution to our Annual Report!
👉 Learn more: content.prereview.org/2025-annual-report
Research Debt is such a good article.
I worked it into my phd-thesis conclusion back in the day. :)
phd.row1.ca/conclusions#...
colab.stanford.edu/articles/mat...
This is written in MyST Markdown @mystmd.org.
Multiple pages, hover cross-references to figures and equations, embedded interactive content.
I (and we @mystmd.org) have been working on releasing new version of the MyST Markdown AST. A foundational change to the representation of Jupyter outputs that sets up a lot of future possibilities - notes and thoughts are here: opensci.dev/articles/on-...
Very excited to be working with @prereview.bsky.social on Modular Peer Review in 2026!
🚀
Sign up to be part of the working group:
continuousfoundation.org/peer-form
Real change happens when people build together. In San Diego, @openrxiv.bsky.social and CSF brought tool builders and researchers into one room to share a keyboard, test ideas, and prototype modular, machine readable publishing.
Learn more: articles.continuousfoundation.org/articles/sci...
