The workshop generated multiple ideas on the future places where we could invest and coordinate a movement. We voted and settled on Composable Science.

Composable Science aims to shift from the traditional “article economy” to a system built on modular, granular scientific contributions (e.g., individual figures, results, or code snippets). Each module is:

• Independently reviewed and published as a component or “snackable” research output (e.g. a figure, multiple figures, an idea, hypothesis, claim, or notebook).
• Recomposable into new analyses, papers, or theories—even by researchers outside the original team.
• Transparent and open, enabling faster, reusable, and iterative scientific progress.
• Creditable to all contributors, not just the lead authors.

This model breaks from the current linear publishing system, embracing a networked, decentralized ecosystem of scientific knowledge. It supports multiple contributors, facilitates remixing, and aligns with modern collaboration, team based science and transparency values.

Opportunities¶

Rapid dissemination and iteration¶

Smaller units mean faster sharing of findings, earlier feedback, and quicker impact.

Lower barriers for contribution¶

Even students or early-career researchers can contribute to modular outputs, democratizing access to scientific publishing.

Enhanced reuse and remixing¶

Individual figures or results can be reused across multiple contexts and narratives, making science more efficient and impactful.

Granular expertise in peer review¶

Reviewers can focus on smaller, specialized components, improving quality and reducing bottlenecks.

Transparent contribution and credit¶

Acknowledges diverse roles (e.g., data curation, code, visualization) and enables modular recognition.

Potential to disrupt traditional publishing models¶

Shifts incentives and control from journals toward researchers and funders, with reuse as core values.

Alignment with modern collaboration models¶

Mirrors approaches in design systems, modular software, and the early web, fostering resilience and creativity.

Challenges¶

Technical infrastructure¶

Requires new systems to manage modular outputs, assign DOIs, track provenance, and ensure interoperability.

Context and provenance tracking¶

Needs robust metadata standards to maintain context and trace contributions across compositions.

Cultural shift¶

Overcoming entrenched norms about publication, authorship, and reuse may meet resistance in academia and publishing.

Incentives and recognition¶

Current systems reward complete articles and high-impact journals; transitioning to modular credit systems requires funder and institutional buy-in.

Risk of hijacking by traditional publishers¶

Large publishers might co-opt the system, embedding modularity into paywalls or subscription models.

Scalability of peer review¶

Modular review increases the number of items needing review, demanding streamlined processes and incentives for reviewers.

Community readiness¶

While some labs already use modular approaches, broader adoption will need significant education, trust-building, and demonstration projects.