I don’t entirely agree with this. I think the main reason why academic don’t adopt Typst for publications is simply that they don’t want to, and don’t have time to. To begin with, not everyone uses LaTeX, most of them rely on Word.
People tend to stick to the one thing they start with, without necessarily wanting to switch to another tool. “Don’t break what works” after all… There is a significant cost to switching from one tool to another, and people simply don’t have the time to do so. The fact that publishers don’t publicly[1] accept Typst source files is just the final nail in the coffin.
One reason why people use Overleaf so much is that it is a complete suite that provides all features needed for writing a paper: bibliography, templates, and collaboration features. Additionally, they provide a very thorough “How-to” section on their documentation. Related: How about a task force to generate a better documentation? - #4 by owiecc
I do agree that Typst should be more stable, probably people won’t even take a look if there is no major release yet.
some of them might accept a Typst source file if directly asked, up to the editor I guess ↩︎