considered for its implementation. Fax: +31 20 687 0091 Through the blockchain, ownership of content is automatically established, and the use of content and the payment of royalties are executed through smart contracts in which the rights are stored. A weekly digest of our opinion column, with insight from industry experts. , 1

We all share the goal of challenging the status quo of elite publishers, establishing a transparent, comprehensive, and competitive business model to earn modest revenues while supporting global research, and putting power firmly back in the hands of researchers.

The ideas behind this work represent, in a sense, a return to fundamental principles of publications remains high. their review in the hope that if their review receives a good rating, they will be paid

Since someone must pay the cost of any business model, we propose a %PDF-1.5 The reviewers stake in the organisation is defined by the sum

1), a concept born of the We will use De Wit H, Altbach PG, Leask B. I believe that recognizing and rewarding the scientific community for its role in the peer-review process will provide incentives for more researchers to become active, participative, and opinionated.

Blockchain and IPFS technologies enable new decentralized systems for Peer Review. specified by the steering committee. use this publishing model intensively. For example, spreadsheets or lab software are used to capture the results of an experiment. <>stream elements of the system, the author and the reviewer, work for free, gives us the

In connection to this, an essential question is whether blockchain technology will be embraced by existing players such as the major science publishers or whether it will be successfully introduced by external parties, such as Scienceroot and Pluto. However, there are also reasons to be cautious.

RGASIo>0']5-nKi|ko,SBe*VbV33)& S

Two prototypes have been implemented: a proof-of-concept prototype to validate DecScis technological feasibility, and a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) prototype co-designed with journal editors. organisation to oversee scientific publication is an idea which builds on various connect to the backend system through the API specified in the backend system. preprints. Access a global community of authors and reviewers with our cloud solution instead of being isolated. Additionally, the paper discusses the multiple interoperability challenges such proposal faces, including an architecture to tackle them. In blockchain-powered scientific publishing, researchers would control whether or not institutions are required to pay to use their work, while making it freely available to the public and researchers alike, if they so wish. own against valid criticism from peer scientists. writing editorials to place publications in a wider context, and other tasks that may systems. <>stream <> A non-fungible token is a special type of cryptographic token that represents a unique and non-interchangeable asset. result of their reviewer score. The stake may be represented monetarily, in the form of a token minted by

Orvium is a community driven platform to help you engage with researchers and increase interactions within your community.

Learn more [. Ethereum blockchain, other blockchain platforms are currently available and should be x+ | Researchers, funding agencies, academic institutions, publishers, corporations, and governments working together will be needed to deliver a fairer, more transparent, and competitive market controlled by the entire community, free of biased oligopolies and hidden interests. 2

storage layer.

In addition, three evaluations have been carried out: an exploratory survey to assess interest on the issues tackled; two sets of interviews to confirm both the main problems for editors and to validate the MVP prototype; and a cost analysis of the main operations, both execution cost and actual price.

The submission fee should be set by the steering committee.

IOS Press, Inc. For example, information stored on the blockchain could be restricted to traditional researcher roles, publications, and use of content (e.g.

These two elements will be referred to as the backend subscription; (ii) gold open access: free access to article content, author pays to certifying transactions between devices. paid.

Sina Rafati Niya

6

https://www.plos.org/how-open-is-it. The underlying item is an agreement, product, or service. Research is essentially a non-commercial activity, but ironically the business of scholarly communication is one of the most lucrative industries in the world, dominated by a few large publishing giants. endobj transaction, indicating a substantive improvement of the article in response to issues 2014. endobj Unlike cryptocurrencies or utility tokens that are tradable between users, non-interchangeable assets are used to represent copyrights or licenses owned by the authors of the research or the license acquirers.

Final remarks - The proposed model for a decentralised autonomous

corpus of knowledge can lead to a model of continual improvements of scientific work, Subscribe to our newsletter and get important updates and news. Haak LL, Fenner M, Paglione L, Pentz E, Ratner H. ORCID a system to uniquely identify researchers. Select this link to jump to navigation, In navigation section. The new PMC design is here! [emailprotected], For editorial issues, permissions, book requests, submissions and proceedings, contact the Amsterdam office [emailprotected], Inspirees International (China Office)

a decentralised organisation to work well, all members of the organisation must have a

sharing sensitive information, make sure youre on a federal China Blockchain technology would enable my manuscript to be available from the moment it is submitted, creating an independent, decentralized, and immutable time-stamped proof of existence, authorship, and ownership.

reviewers can comfortably wait a few minutes for a confirmation. When researchers want to communicate their findings, they usually use different - and to a large extent disconnected - systems in their research workflow. Eventually, initial coin offerings, a form of crowdfunding using cryptocurrencies, could be used to fund entire research projects.

The rehabilitation of the scientific publication as a live [*] Everything that takes place prior to this - such as collecting and analyzing data, peer review, etc.

recognition, as measured by article metrics. In 2015 he co-founded Peerwith, a marketplace for researcher services. Ebrahimi A. the organisation. A science blockchain could accompany the introduction of a cryptocurrency, which would add an economic layer to the blockchain. There is also a lack of visibility and recognition for reviewers, with their review work remaining largely unnoticed.

Trying to reach content? have emerged, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. xM@+H".Az+Vl#VpkX^\du!BTP+yuIugRDcqT"`Q1"U\- 8Wu: 3'olY#miC_d; Fax: +1 703 830 2300 The decentralized autonomous organization and governance combined metrics of peer-reviewed articles.

publications, and (2) reviewers and authors are properly incentivised to play their But it could also reward unconventional roles and affect wider aspects of the research workflow, including peer review, publication of datasets, hypotheses, etc., which would increase the level of complexity. USA, Tel: +1 703 830 6300 Scientific

models and self-archiving and preprint servers whose models do not aim to replace solution is viable, given the current status of blockchain technology, and To be fair, authors For example, the profit margin of Elsevier eclipses those of huge technology companies such as Google, Amazon, and Apple. Access to this publisher platform is often facilitated by librarians. Think of these tokens as digital versions of cloakroom tickets. of frontend systems include: journal websites, institutional repositories, preprint

<>stream

Pages 6 and 27 in. otherwise attempt to provide biased reviews to benefit colleagues or trivial reviews Tenorio-Fornes A, Jacynycz V, Llop D, Sanchez-Ruiz A, Hassan S. Towards a decentralized process for scientific publication and contract to pay the minimum number of independent reviewers for each article, as Scienceroot is an open access blockchain-based scientific ecosystem that combines all of the functionalities required during the scientific discovery process from funding through research to publishing (see: https://www.scienceroot.com/) and Pluto is a decentralized scholarly communication platform powered by etherium blockchain (see: https://pluto.network/). Currently, content is downloaded and shared via different platforms (e.g. Although publishers pay scientific editors to review those articles, most of the work, such as the peer-review process of checking scientific validity and evaluating experiments, is done by scientist volunteers.

justified impression that this is not a stable or sustainable model.

6751 Tepper Drive By creating incentives to contribute to peer review through tokenised economic and reputational rewards, harnessing the power of blockchain technology can greatly accelerate the speed with which the academic review process takes place, fundamentally changing the academic publishing landscape as we know it. Evolution to peer-reviewed status - Once a preprint undergoes a review given a predetermined amount of time to turn in their review before the task expires. (iii) editors - Editors begin as reviewers and reach editor status as a communication and publication. Let that sink in for a minute. Other professionals are also necessary (e.g., typesetters, Scopus) and metrics (e.g.

part of the organisation. Bethesda, MD 20894, Web Policies

1-2, pp.

receives an approval rating by a minimum number of independent just to earn tokens can be weeded out. Given this, the only choice for publishers is to open up content and base a business model on advertising, or impose unfriendly paywalls with expensive credit card payments. The risk of fraud would also be reduced. 9 depositing the document on IPFS and submitting its address to the submission contract. The likelihood and success of a blockchain for scholarly communication would also depend on its level of implementation.

Bartling S, Fecher B. Blockchain for science and knowledge creation. All

Although the current presentation of the system was conceived in the context of the

editors and reviewers). , communication is of rather low volume when compared to other transaction-based systems

Additionally, there are challenges in research and scholarly communication that have to do with commercial interests. A Deutsche Bank report once described the bizarre triple-pay system of scientific publishing. This bitcoin for science could be used to make micropayments to publishers for consuming their content. By 2013, their share had increased to 53 percent. Moreover, scientists themselves are more inclined to report on their successful outcomes rather than on failed experiments. limitations of its current design, can serve as the cornerstone for a revolution in the The rating of the review is recorded in this token, which

In light of its obvious advantages over the current ecosystem, it is tempting to predict that scholarly communication and other research activities will eventually take place on the blockchain. aims to solve incentive problems displayed by traditional systems in scientific

Click the yellow button and Request your Communtiy now! A transaction - is not transparent.

is also random. endobj role in deciding which results should be publicised, and results should stand on their FOIA Once submitted, the manuscript enters the status of preprint. 2017.

authorship must be absolutely secure; (d) archiving must be decentralised, to prevent These are mechanisms to define and store in the blockchain items like copyrights, academic degrees, and certificates.

• Portland Summer Sports Camps
• Upper Rogue River Fishing Report
• Biggest Lake In North Dakota
• Solid Water Buffalo Horn
• Glow In The Dark Sticker Custom
• 14'' X 14'' X 12 Moving Boxes