I explore ideas like this writing process in my emergent scholarship project.
How I write academic content now
A few years ago, I switched to writing almost exclusively in Markdown using Obsidian. More recently, I’ve evolved my academic writing workflow to embrace a more open, collaborative approach that challenges traditional publishing models. This is part of a new project I’m working on, on the idea of a different approach to scholarship.
Here’s how my writing process works:
- Markdown for writing: Plain text with simple formatting that focuses on content rather than presentation (I do most of my writing in Obsidian)
- Git/GitHub for versioning and collaboration: Version control with transparent history, public engagement, and the possibility of peer review
- VitePress for presentation: Automated conversion of markdown to an optimised website (controlled via a GitHub Action)
- GitHub Actions and Pages for building and deployment: Automated publishing of the “live” version of the document to a website hosted for free at GitHub
- Manual OSF preprint submission: For creating DOIs and permanent snapshots through preprints (I will also start adding the preprints to the Internet Archive for long-term archiving)
- Journal submission: If I decide to, I can submit the preprint to a traditional academic journal for a more traditional publication
VitePress automates website presentation; it’s not strictly necessary for the core process of writing, reviewing, and publishing. The essential components are markdown-based writing and GitHub for transparent version control and collaboration.
This creates a living document that anyone can see evolve, contribute to, and engage with (i.e. the Github repo and published website), while still maintaining academically acceptable versions for citation purposes (preprint and journal submissions). It’s a system that brings the collaborative practices of open source software development into scholarly writing.
I should also note that, while the initial idea might seem overly complicated, it’s almost all automated and takes seconds to go from editing in Obsidian, to an updated website. The manual submission to Zenodo for the DOI, and minor editing required, are nothing compared to the hoops we have to jump through with journal submissions.
Why this workflow?
The way we write profoundly shapes what we can say and how we collaborate. Traditional academic writing processes—centred around word processors and email exchanges—both reflect and reinforce closed, hierarchical knowledge systems. This new academic writing workflow isn’t only a technical choice; it’s a deliberate effort to create bridges between how we talk about scholarship and how we actually practise it.
There’s an important power dynamic at play here. The traditional publishing system gives the industry a lot of power in choosing the direction and pace of knowledge creation and dissemination. They determine what gets published, when, and how it’s distributed—often putting it behind paywalls that limit who can access cutting edge ideas. My approach to academic writing is a way of replicating some of the functionality of the closed publishing system while taking back some of that power, particularly around the timing, format, and accessibility of knowledge sharing.
The benefits of plain text
One of the most significant advantages of writing in Markdown is that it’s just plain text. This brings several important benefits:
- Low bandwidth and storage requirements: Plain text files are tiny compared to Word documents or PDFs, making them ideal for storing, sharing, and backing up, even with limited internet access.
- Future-proof format: Unlike proprietary formats that may become obsolete, plain text has been readable for decades and will likely remain so for decades to come.
- Format flexibility through Pandoc: Using tools like Pandoc, I can convert my Markdown files into virtually any format needed—Word documents for traditional submissions, PDFs for distribution, HTML for web publication, ePub for e-readers, and more—all from a single source file.
- Version control compatibility: Text files work seamlessly with Git and other version control systems, making it easy to track changes and collaborate with others.
- Distraction-free writing: Without formatting buttons and complex interfaces, I can focus entirely on the content.
Problems this addresses
This approach directly confronts several challenges in current scholarly practices:
Writing experience
Word processors often impose unnecessary complexity that gets in the way of writing. Markdown provides a distraction-free environment that separates content creation from formatting concerns, allowing writers to focus on what matters most—their ideas.
Reviewer recognition
In traditional publishing, peer reviewers (might) make significant intellectual contributions but receive minimal recognition, even with open peer review processes. GitHub’s issue-based discussions create permanent, citable records of all contributions, properly acknowledging everyone who shapes the work rather than relegating them to a brief acknowledgement or anonymity.
Review quality
The current peer review system often relies on “whoever said yes” rather than ideal expertise, given the difficulty of finding reviewers. Open GitHub discussions allow for broader, more diverse feedback while maintaining transparency about who contributed what—making the quality and context of review visible to all. I know that some people reading this will be wondering about the issues that come with inviting your own peer reviewers to go through your writing, but 1) we often have to suggest peer reviewers to editors anyway, and 2) this is all public.
Knowledge evolution
Traditional publishing freezes knowledge at a point in time. This workflow maintains living documents that can evolve while still providing stable snapshots through DOIs for citation purposes, acknowledging that knowledge is never truly static.
Power redistribution
By controlling the means of production and distribution, this approach shifts power away from publishers and back to scholars and communities. It allows for immediate sharing of ideas rather than waiting months or years for publication, and it makes knowledge freely accessible rather than locked behind paywalls.
Open source inspiration
This approach draws significant inspiration from open source software development communities. Their collaborative ethos, transparent processes, and community governance models provide valuable templates for reimagining scholarly work.
GitHub’s issue tracking, pull requests, and discussions—tools designed for software development—become powerful mechanisms for scholarly dialogue when repurposed for academic writing. This creates space for:
- Public peer review
- Continuous improvement
- Community contributions
- Transparent attribution
- Visible evolution of ideas
This project remains an experiment—a bridge between established academic practices and new possibilities that technology enables. It doesn’t reject traditional scholarship but extends it, creating pathways for knowledge to develop more openly, collaboratively, and transparently.