2019
DOI: 10.24251/hicss.2019.560
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Towards a Decentralized Process for Scientific Publication and Peer Review using Blockchain and IPFS

Abstract: The current processes of scientific publication and peer review raise concerns around fairness, quality, performance, cost, and accuracy. The Open Access movement has been unable to fulfill all its promises, and a few middlemen publishers can still impose policies and concentrate profits. This paper, using emerging distributed technologies such as Blockchain and IPFS, proposes a decentralized publication system for open science. The proposed system would provide (1) a distributed reviewer reputation system, (2… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
25
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 63 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
0
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We certainly do not want the binary attribute of "code works" to become a factor in bibliometric approaches for performance assessments. While developed for the current "paper"-centric publication process, the CODECHECK principles would also work well with novel publication paradigms, e.g., peer-reviewed computational notebooks 112 , iterative and granular communication of research outputs, articles with live-code 113 such as eLife's ERA, decentralized infrastructure and public reviewer reputation systems 114 , and completely new visions for scholarly communication and peer review, such as described by Amy J. Ko in A modern vision for peer review. An explicit segmentation of research steps could even make the focus of a CODECHECK easier by only checking the "analysis" sub-publication.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We certainly do not want the binary attribute of "code works" to become a factor in bibliometric approaches for performance assessments. While developed for the current "paper"-centric publication process, the CODECHECK principles would also work well with novel publication paradigms, e.g., peer-reviewed computational notebooks 112 , iterative and granular communication of research outputs, articles with live-code 113 such as eLife's ERA, decentralized infrastructure and public reviewer reputation systems 114 , and completely new visions for scholarly communication and peer review, such as described by Amy J. Ko in A modern vision for peer review. An explicit segmentation of research steps could even make the focus of a CODECHECK easier by only checking the "analysis" sub-publication.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2. The IPFS [17] Peer-to-Peer network is used to distribute scientific papers by giving open access infrastructure. 3.…”
Section: Literature Surveymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Not only playing as a game-changer in music domain, IPFS has been adopted by other areas. For instance, Tenorio-Forn et al [71] proposed a decentralized publication system for open-access science based on IPFS. Their proposed distributed systems can record reviewers' reputation, and handle the transparent governance processes.…”
Section: Application Issuesmentioning
confidence: 99%