IdeaWell

Project ideas from Hacker News discussions.

Show HN: Octosphere, a tool to decentralise scientific publishing

Original Article

Hacker News Discussion

📝 Discussion Summary (Click to expand)

Three prevailing themes in the discussion

Theme Key points Representative quotes
1. A new research‑centric platform on ATProto Users are excited about a potential Bluesky‑derived space for scientists, and are already sharing resources and inviting others to join. verdverm: “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)”
verdverm: “Go chime in and share your work here: https://discourse.atprotocol.community/t/about-the-atproto-science-category/109”
2. Disrupting traditional peer review with social‑media‑style crowdsourcing The idea of replacing gate‑kept journals with a community‑review system is discussed, with mixed opinions on feasibility. gnarlouse: “Integrate them peer review process and you’ve got a disrupter”
mlpoknbji: “Peer review should be disrupted, but doing peer review via social media is not the way to go.”
perching_aix: “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.”
3. Gate‑keeping, verification, and manipulation concerns Participants debate whether to keep any gate‑keeping at all, how to handle bot‑driven voting, and how to distinguish credible reviewers. naasking: “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: “While I appreciate no gatekeeping, the other side of the coin is gatekeeping via bots (vote manipulation).”
staplers: “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).”

These three themes capture the core of the conversation: building a new research hub on ATProto, reimagining peer review through community engagement, and navigating the balance between openness and safeguards against manipulation.

🚀 Project Ideas

ATProto ScholarHub

Summary

  • Decentralized research collaboration and open peer‑review platform built on ATProto.
  • Solves the lack of a dedicated academic space on ATProto and streamlines manuscript submission, review, and discussion.
  • Core value: Transparent, censorship‑resistant peer review with built‑in reputation tracking.

Details

Key Value
Target Audience Early‑career researchers, postdocs, and academic labs seeking open review.
Core Feature End‑to‑end manuscript workflow: upload, open review, revision, and publication on ATProto.
Tech Stack ATProto SDK, React, Node.js, PostgreSQL, IPFS for storage, Web3Auth for identity.
Difficulty Medium
Monetization Revenue‑ready: tiered subscription for advanced analytics and institutional licenses.

Notes

  • HN commenters want a “researchers platform on ATProto” and a “full day at the conference” – this directly addresses that need.
  • Provides a place to “share your work here” and connect with the community.
  • Encourages open, non‑gatekeeping review while still offering reputation metrics.

CriticScore

Summary

  • Reputation and verification service for academic reviewers on ATProto.
  • Addresses concerns about gatekeeping, bot manipulation, and the need for a “verified users” column.
  • Core value: Trustworthy reviewer scores that separate genuine expertise from spam.

Details

Key Value
Target Audience Academic reviewers, journal editors, and researchers on ATProto.
Core Feature Cryptographic identity verification + community voting to compute a “critic score” per user.
Tech Stack ATProto, Ethereum (or Algorand) for signatures, Solidity smart contracts, React, Node.js.
Difficulty High
Monetization Revenue‑ready: API access for journals and institutions, freemium model for individual users.

Notes

  • Directly responds to “no gatekeeping” but “verified users (critic score)” suggestions.
  • Helps mitigate “vote manipulation” by bots, as noted by staplers.
  • Provides a transparent metric that can be displayed alongside reviews.

NarrativeLens

Summary

  • NLP‑driven dashboard that aggregates ATProto comments and reviews to surface dominant narratives.
  • Solves the frustration of parsing “highly controversial situations” and understanding common narratives.
  • Core value: Quick, visual insight into community sentiment and emerging research trends.

Details

Key Value
Target Audience Researchers, science journalists, policy makers, and curious HN users.
Core Feature Real‑time sentiment analysis, topic clustering, and narrative heatmaps for ATProto threads.
Tech Stack Python (spaCy, HuggingFace), Node.js, WebSocket API, D3.js for visualization.
Difficulty Medium
Monetization Hobby (open‑source core, optional paid analytics add‑ons).

Notes

  • Echoes the idea of a “rotten tomatoes”‑style system with separate voting columns.
  • Provides practical utility for “parse common narratives” as discussed.
  • Encourages community discussion around controversial research topics.

Read Later