Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
FAQs
Figures
Introduction
Data Sharing
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Computer Science

Blockchain for Science and Knowledge Creation

Profile image of Benedikt FecherBenedikt Fecher

2018, Gesundheit digital

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-57611-3_10
visibility

…

description

18 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Blockchain technology has the capacity to make digital goods immutable, transparent, externally provable, decentralized, and distributed. Besides the initial experiment or data acquisition, all remaining parts of the research cycle could take place within a blockchain system. Attribution, data, data postprocessing, publication, research evaluation, incentivisation, and research fund distribution would thereby become comprehensible, open (at will) and provable to the external world. Currently, scientists must be trusted to provide a true and useful representation of their research results in their final publication; blockchain would make much larger parts of the research cycle open to scientific selfcorrection. This bears the potential to be a technical solution to the current reproducibility crisis in science, and could 'reduce waste and make more research results true'.

FAQs

sparkles

AI

What applications of blockchain can improve research reproducibility?add

The publication highlights that blockchain could enhance reproducibility by providing immutable timestamps for study designs and data, thereby preventing arbitrary alterations. For instance, blockchain-based systems can securely store research data, making it retrievable and verifiable by others, thus addressing issues of transparency.

How does blockchain technology address the integrity crisis in scientific research?add

Blockchain ensures data integrity through its immutable and decentralized nature, making data manipulation detectable. The paper cites examples like using blockchain for timestamping research data to verify its authenticity and prevent fraudulent alterations.

When was blockchain first recognized as a data structure?add

The concept of blockchain as a data structure dates back to 1991, prior to its popularization with Bitcoin. This foundation has allowed various applications of blockchain technologies beyond cryptocurrency.

What is the role of smart contracts in scientific research?add

Smart contracts facilitate automated agreements in research funding and data sharing by executing protocols based on predefined conditions. The paper indicates that smart contracts could enable a 'moneyback' guarantee for irreproducible research results, promoting accountability.

Why are decentralized peer-review systems proposed in blockchain applications?add

Decentralized peer-review systems are proposed to enhance transparency and quality assurance in research evaluations. The publication discusses how blockchain could facilitate a peer-review process that is publicly verifiable and immune to manipulation.

Figures (3)
After the blockchain revolution, this changes fundamentally. The following things may sound a bit nerdish, but they have far reaching implications and it is worthwhile understanding the terms - they will be used much more often in the future.
After the blockchain revolution, this changes fundamentally. The following things may sound a bit nerdish, but they have far reaching implications and it is worthwhile understanding the terms - they will be used much more often in the future.
Figure 2: Blockchain can make research databases immutable, meaning that they cannot be changed without leaving a trace. Transparent (provable to the external world) means that a computer program is really running as is publicised (advertised). At the moment, we must rely upon others to calculate things (e.g. impact factor) or to apply post-processing tools to research data as they claim that they are doing it; after blockchain revolution, this will be transparent and provable to peers. things (e.g. impact factor) or to apply post-processing tools to research data as they claim
Figure 2: Blockchain can make research databases immutable, meaning that they cannot be changed without leaving a trace. Transparent (provable to the external world) means that a computer program is really running as is publicised (advertised). At the moment, we must rely upon others to calculate things (e.g. impact factor) or to apply post-processing tools to research data as they claim that they are doing it; after blockchain revolution, this will be transparent and provable to peers. things (e.g. impact factor) or to apply post-processing tools to research data as they claim

Related papers

Prospects of digital scientific publishing on blockchain: The concept of DAP
Davor Davidović

Open Research Europe

Background: Traditional publishing models, open access and major publishers, cannot adequately address the key challenges of academic publishing today: Speed of peer review, recognition of work and incentive mechanisms, transparency and thrust of the system. Methods: To address these challenges, the authors propose Decentralised Academic Publishing (DAP), which is based on the novel HashNET DLT platform. The DAP introduces several innovative components: tracking the activities of all participants in the peer review process using blockchain and smart contracts, the introduction of the Scholarly Wallet for holding reputation (non-fungible) and reward (fungible) tokens, the use of the Scholarly Wallet as the main interface to the DAP platform, the Virtual Editor that enables automatic discovery of the research area and invitation of reviewers, and finally the global database of evaluated reviewers, ranked by the quality of their previous work. Results: The DAP platform is in the develo...

View PDFchevron_right
Towards a Decentralized Process for Scientific Publication and Peer Review using Blockchain and IPFS
Viktor Jacynycz, Antonio Sánchez-Ruiz, Ámbar Tenorio-Fornés

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) an Open Access by-design infrastructure, and (3) transparent governance processes. A survey is used to evaluate the problems, proposed solutions and possible adoption resistances, while a working prototype serves as a proof-of-concept. Additionally, the paper discusses the implementation, in a distributed context, of different privacy settings for both open peer review and reputation systems, introducing a novel approach supporting both anonymous and accountable reviews. The paper concludes reviewing the open challenges of this ambitious proposal.

View PDFchevron_right
Blockchain, Wikis, and the Ideal Science Machine: With an Example From Genomics
David Koepsell

Frontiers in Blockchain

Until now we have lacked a technology that could well capture the processes of science in a way that preserves every step, and creates a full audit trail such that nearly complete transparency is maintained. Combining wiki technologies and blockchain provides us with a new opportunity: to create a "science machine" that folds all processes together, from instrument to publication, and enabling science to proceed as never before with greater transparency, accountability, and reproducibility. Here, I discuss the theory and method that might be combined to create such a science machine with special reference to the nature of genomic science.

View PDFchevron_right
A Logical Framework for Scientific Research Projects based on Blockchain Technology
WARSE The World Academy of Research in Science and Engineering

International Journal of Advanced Trends in Computer Science and Engineering , 2021

The Scientific research projects has encountered severe problems in procurements of supply for research projects in Egypt. Despite the huge number of scientific researches projects annually. The cost of scientific research projects is so high and it has a lot of elements in their supply chains. Due to this, it becomes almost impossible to keep track of each and every record in traditional ways. The lack of transparency and increased cost of projects lead to some of scientific researches not turn into a final product and facing many problems. This paper proposed a logical framework for enhancing the supply of scientific research projects using Blockchain. by analyzing the previous works in Blockchain & Smart Contract, Blockchain & e-commerce, Blockchain & Procurement, and Blockchain & Tender. The researcher built the research point from this analyzing. Using Blockchain in Procurements and Blockchain in Tenders as a method for Build a Framework for effectively lead to increase security, minimize delays in paperwork and increase the transparency and quality assurance.

View PDFchevron_right
A Decentralized Publication System for Open Science using Blockchain and IPFS
Antonio Sánchez-Ruiz, Ámbar Tenorio-Fornés

Science publication and peer review raises concerns about fairness, quality, performance, cost or accuracy. The Open Access movements has been unable to fulfill all its promises, and 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. It provides transparent governance, a distributed reviewer reputation system, and open access by-design. The paper concludes reviewing the open challenges of such approach.

View PDFchevron_right
Integrating Blockchain for Data Sharing and Collaboration Support in Scientific Ecosystem Platform
Mario Dantas

Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

Nowadays, scientific experiments are conducted collaboratively. In collaborative scientific experiments, we must consider aspects such as interoperability, privacy, and trust in shared data to allow the reproducibility of the results. A critical aspect associated with a scientific process is its provenance information, which can be defined as the origin or lineage of the data that helps understand the scientific experiment results. Another concern when conducting collaborative experiments is confidentiality, considering that only authorized personnel can share or view results. In this paper, we propose BlockFlow, a blockchain-based architecture, to bring reliability to the collaborative research, considering the capture, storage, and analysis of provenance data related to a scientific ecosystem platform (E-SECO).

View PDFchevron_right
Publish-and-Flourish: Using Blockchain Platform to Enable Cooperative Scholarly Communication
Andrej Duh

Publications

Scholarly communication is today immersed in publish-or-perish culture that propels non-cooperative behavior in the sense of strategic games played by researchers. Here we introduce and describe a blockchain based platform for decentralized scholarly communication. The design of the platform rests on community driven publishing reviewing processes and implements cryptoeconomic incentives that promote cooperative user behavior. The key to achieve cooperation in blockchain based scholarly communication is to transform today’s static research paper into a modifiable research paper under continuous peer review process. We introduce and discuss the implementation of a modifiable research paper as a smart contract on the blockchain.

View PDFchevron_right
Survey System Using Blockchain for Scientific Research
Salim Eray ÇELİK

2021

The survey is a list of questions prepared according to a specific plan for the resource people who constitute a universe or sample to understand specific people's feelings, thoughts, and experiences on a subject. However, there are many disadvantages such as lack of transparency, lack of participant privacy, and low level of security due to the centralized structure of existing survey systems. Blockchain is a Digital Trust Protocol that provides agentless, transparent, secure information transfer that protects user privacy with crypto encryption. In this study, we propose a blockchain-based, inter-university survey system to be used in scientific research to solve the problems encountered in existing survey systems. We also do a SWOT analysis of our proposed approach and centralized survey systems, utilize an algorithm in the literature to investigate whether blockchain is suitable for survey applications, compare the central survey systems with the design we propose in terms of transparency using the CNN transparency index. Moreover, we use the technology organization environment (TOE) theory to identify barriers that may arise in technology adoption and use the Fuzzy Decision-Making Trial and Laboratory Evaluation (Fuzzy Dematel) method to evaluate, analyze and prioritize the interactions of these barriers with each other.

View PDFchevron_right
Blockchain for Open Science and Sustainable Development Goals
Mando Rachovitsa

Spring 2018, International Legal Research Informer Newsletter (American Society of International Law) pp. 2-4, 2018

Open science - namely more openness with regard to educational resources, access, methodology, reproducibility and data - is fundamental to realising the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Science is a universal public good and it can be a game-changer when addressing global problems. This is exemplified by the critical role that the production and diffusion of science (scientific outputs and process) plays in the transfer of knowledge and technology. Some examples include the need for decentralised ways to acquire, manage and analyse open data in disaster management (resilient & sustainable cities under SDG 11); or the need for new Research & Development models for innovation and knowledge & tech transfer for the production, availability and access to safe, quality and affordable medicines and vaccines (SDG 3); or the need for technologies for providing clean water & sanitation, affordable & clean energy and mitigating (the adverse effects of) climate action (SDGs 6, 7, 13 and 9). The urgent relevance of pursuing open science across scientific disciplines and various industries is further exemplified by the thus far “dormant” right to science. The right to science, as formulated under Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, provides that everyone has the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications and that States parties shall take steps necessary for the conservation, the development and diffusion of science.

View PDFchevron_right
Open-Pub: A Transparent yet Privacy-Preserving Academic Publication System based on Blockchain
zhiguo wan

2021 International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN)

Academic publication of latest research results are crucial to advance development of all disciplines. However, there are a number of severe disadvantages in current academic publication systems. The first problem is the misconduct during the publication process due to the opaque paper review process. An anonymous reviewer may give biased comments to a paper without being noticed or punished, because the comments are seldom published for evaluation. Secondly, the author anonymity during the paper review process is easily compromised since this information is simply open to the conference chair or the journal editor. Last but not least, access to research papers is restricted to only subscribers, and even the authors cannot access their own papers. In this paper, we propose Open-Pub, a decentralized, transparent yet privacy-preserving academic publication scheme using the blockchain technology, aiming to reduce academic misconducts and promote free sharing of research results. To this end, we design a threshold group signature to achieve anonymity for reviewers and authors. With this group signature, authors can choose to submit papers anonymously and validators take turns to distribute papers anonymously to reviewers on the blockchain according to their research interests. After the reviewers submit their review comments, the identities of reviewers and anonymous authors will be disclosed. These processes will be recorded on the blockchain so that everyone can trace the entire process. To evaluate its efficiency, we implement Open-Pub based on Ethereum source code and conduct comprehensive experiments to evaluate its performance, including computation cost and processing delay. The experiment results show that Open-Pub is highly efficient in computation and processing anonymous transactions.

View PDFchevron_right

References (60)

  1. Swan M. Blockchain: Blueprint for a New Economy [Internet].
  2. O'Reilly Media; 2015. Available: https://books.google.de/books?id=RHJmBgAAQBAJ
  3. The trust machine. In: The Economist [Internet]. 2015 [cited 22 Jun 2016]. Available: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21677198technologybehindbitcoincouldtra nsformhoweconomyworkstrustmachine
  4. MetaCouncil on Emerging Technologies. In: World Economic Forum [Internet]. [cited 6 Jul 2016]. Available: https://www.weforum.org/communities/metacouncilonemergingtechnologies/
  5. Ulieru M. Blockchain Enhances Privacy, Security and Conveyance of Data. Scientific American. Available: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/blockchainenhancesprivacysecurityandcon veyanceofdata/ . Accessed 6 Jul 2016.
  6. Ioannidis JPA, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, Khoury MJ, Macleod MR, Moher D, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet. 2014;383: 166-175. doi: 10.1016/S01406736(13)622278
  7. Ioannidis JPA. How to make more published research true. PLoS Med. 2014;11: e1001747. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001747
  8. Ioannidis JPA. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med. 2005;2: e124. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
  9. Young NS, Ioannidis JPA, AlUbaydli O. Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science. PLoS Med. Oktober 7, 2008;5: e201. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050201
  10. Goldacre B. Are clinical trial data shared sufficiently today? No. BMJ. 2013;347: f1880. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f1880
  11. Engber D. Think Psychology's Replication Crisis Is Bad? Welcome to the One in Medicine. In: Slate Magazine [Internet]. 19 Apr 2016 [cited 25 Jun 2016]. Available: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/future_tense/2016/04/biomedicine_fa cing_a_worse_replication_crisis_than_the_one_plaguing_psychology.html
  12. Freedman LP, Cockburn IM, Simcoe TS. The Economics of Reproducibility in Preclinical Research. PLoS Biol. 2015;13: e1002165. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002165
  13. Angell M. Drug companies & doctors: A story of corruption. New York Rev Books. 2009;56: 8-12. Available: http://www.fondazionedibella.org/cmsweb/upl/doc/Documentiinseritidal2112007/Tru th%20About%20The%20Drug%20Companies.pdf
  14. Schneider L. Voinnet aftermath: ethical bankruptcy of academic elites. In: For Better Science [Internet].
  15. pubpeer. A crisis of trust | PubPeer [Internet]. [cited 7 Jul 2016]. Available: http://blog.pubpeer.com/?p=164&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=a crisisoftrust
  16. Haber S, Stuart H, W.Scott S. How to timestamp a digital document. J Cryptology. 1991;3. doi: 10.1007/bf00196791
  17. Nakamoto S. Bitcoin: A peertopeer electronic cash system [Internet]. 2008. Available: http://www.cryptovest.co.uk/resources/Bitcoin%20paper%20Original.pdf
  18. Tschorsch F, Scheuermann B. Bitcoin and beyond: A technical survey on decentralized digital currencies. ieeexplore.ieee.org; 2015; Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=7423672
  19. Lamport L, Shostak R, Pease M. The Byzantine Generals Problem. ACM Trans Program Lang Syst. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 1982;4: 382-401. doi: 10.1145/357172.357176
  20. Lamport L. The Parttime Parliament. ACM Trans Comput Syst. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 1998;16: 133-169. doi: 10.1145/279227.279229
  21. Jakobsson M, Juels A. Proofs of work and bread pudding protocols. Secure Information Networks. Springer; 1999. pp. 258-272. Available: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/9780387355689_18
  22. Buterin V. On Public and Private Blockchains. Ethereum Blog. 2015;
  23. Science B.0 on Twitter. In: Twitter [Internet]. [cited 22 Jun 2016]. Available: https://twitter.com/science_b0/status/712126802064449536
  24. Wisniewska A. Altcoins [Internet]. Institute of Economic Research; 2016 May. Report No.: 14/2016. Available: http://ideas.repec.org/p/pes/wpaper/2016no14.html
  25. Hurlburt G. Might the Blockchain Outlive Bitcoin? IT Prof. 2016;18: 12-16. doi: 10.1109/MITP.2016.21
  26. Buterin V. Ethereum: A NextGeneration Smart Contract and Decentralized Application Platform. 2013a. URL $\{$http://ethereum org/ethereum html$\}$.
  27. Nick Szabo The Idea of Smart Contracts [Internet]. [cited 22 Jun 2016]. Available: http://szabo.best.vwh.net/smart_contracts_idea.html
  28. DAOs, DACs, DAs and More: An Incomplete Terminology Guide Ethereum Blog. In: Ethereum Blog [Internet]. 6 May 2014 [cited 22 Jun 2016]. Available: https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/05/06/daosdacsdasandmoreanincompleteterminolo gyguide/
  29. T, (7) J, (4) P. A Proposal For An Incentivized Synthetic Biology System Subchain On The Steem Blockchain Platform -Steemit. In: Steemit [Internet]. [cited 6 Aug 2016]. Available: https://steemit.com/science/@transhuman/aproposalforanincentivizedsyntheticbiolo gysystemsubchainonthesteemblockchainplatform
  30. Plagiarism concerns raised over popular blockchain paper on catching misconduct Retraction Watch. In: Retraction Watch [Internet]. 14 Jul 2016 [cited 15 Jul 2016]. Available: http://retractionwatch.com/2016/07/14/plagiarismconcernsraisedoverpopularblockch ainpaperoncatchingmisconduct/
  31. Bradley J, Bradley J. Scientific Research Needs a Trustless Blockchain Architecture to Be Trusted CCN: Financial Bitcoin & Cryptocurrency News. In: CCN: Financial Bitcoin & Cryptocurrency News [Internet]. 13 May 2016 [cited 2 Jul 2016]. Available: https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/scientificresearchneedsatrustlessblockchainarchi tecturetobetrusted/
  32. Redman J. Clinical Trials Show the Blockchain Can Stop "Fraudulent" Science. In: Bitcoin News [Internet]. 19 May 2016 [cited 2 Jul 2016]. Available: https://news.bitcoin.com/clinicalblockchainstopfraudscience/
  33. Astroblocks Puts Proofs of Scientific Discoveries on the Bitcoin Blockchain [Internet]. [cited 22 Jun 2016]. Available: http://insidebitcoins.com/news/astroblocksputsproofsofscientificdiscoveriesonthebi tcoinblockchain/31153
  34. Cawrey D, Wolinsky J, Rampton J, Wolinsky R, Palmer D. Bitcoin's Technology Could Revolutionize Intellectual Property Rights. In: CoinDesk [Internet]. 8 May 2014 [cited 22 Jun 2016]. Available: http://www.coindesk.com/howblockchaintechnologyisworkingtotransformintellectu alproperty/
  35. Irving G, Holden J. How blockchaintimestamped protocols could improve the trustworthiness of medical science. F1000Res. 2016;5: 222. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.8114.1
  36. Carlisle BG. The Grey Literature, apparently -Proof of prespecified endpoints in medical research with the bitcoin blockchain [Internet]. [cited 15 Jul 2016]. Available: http://www.bgcarlisle.com/blog/2014/08/25/proofofprespecifiedendpointsinmedicalre searchwiththebitcoinblockchain/
  37. Blockchains For Science: Aligning Research Incentives. In: Doing Distributed Business [Internet]. [cited 22 Jun 2016]. Available: https://db.erisindustries.com/science/2016/03/14/blockchainsandscience/
  38. Ioannidis JPA. Why Most Clinical Research Is Not Useful. PLoS Med. 2016;13: e1002049. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002049
  39. Schneider L. False priorities at EU2016NL: Mandate Open Data instead of Gold Open Access! In: For Better Science [Internet]. 28 Apr 2016 [cited 2 Jul 2016]. Available: https://forbetterscience.wordpress.com/2016/04/28/falseprioritiesateu2016nlmandate opendatainsteadofgoldopenaccess/
  40. soenkeba on Twitter. In: Twitter [Internet]. [cited 2 Jul 2016]. Available: https://twitter.com/soenkeba/status/697436268737777664
  41. Topol EJ. Money back guarantees for nonreproducible results? BMJ. 2016;353: i2770. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i2770
  42. Wagner A. Putting the Blockchain to Work For Science! In: Bitcoin Magazine [Internet]. 22 May 2014 [cited 2 Jul 2016]. Available: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/puttingtheblockchaintoworkforsciencegridcoin
  43. Scott M. The Future of Medical Records: Two Blockchain Experts Weigh In [Internet]. [cited 2 Jul 2016]. Available: https://btcmanager.com/news/thefutureofmedicalrecordstwoblockchainexpertswei ghin/
  44. Magazine B. Bitcoin Magazine | Bitcoin and Blockchain News [Internet]. [cited 22 Jun 2016]. Available: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/frombenchtobedsideenablingreproduciblecom mercialscienceviablockchain1464881141)
  45. Dynamic Publication Formats and Collaborative Authoring Springer [Internet]. [cited 22 Jun 2016]. Available: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/9783319000268_13
  46. benjojo, pharesim. Independent scientists could blog their research onto the Steemit blockchain -Steemit. In: Steemit [Internet]. [cited 1 Aug 2016]. Available: https://steemit.com/research/@benjojo/independentsientistscouldblogtheirresearch ontothesteemitblockchain
  47. Science B.0 on Twitter. In: Twitter [Internet]. [cited 2 Jul 2016]. Available: https://twitter.com/science_b0/status/695886036447203328
  48. b8d5ad9d974a44e7e2882f986467f4d. Towards Open Science: The Case for a Decentralized Autonomous Academic Endorsement System [Internet]. Zenodo; 2016. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.60054
  49. Lab MM. Certificates, Reputation, and the Blockchain -MIT MEDIA LAB. In: Medium [Internet]. 27 Oct 2015 [cited 22 Jun 2016]. Available: https://medium.com/mitmedialab/certificatesreputationandtheblockchainaee036224 26f
  50. The Possibilities of Badges and Blockchain DML Central. In: DML Central [Internet]. 11 Feb 2016 [cited 22 Jun 2016]. Available: http://dmlcentral.net/thepossibilitiesofbadgesandblockchain/
  51. Lambert Heller on Twitter. In: Twitter [Internet]. [cited 6 Jul 2016]. Available: https://twitter.com/Lambo/status/192725705556103169
  52. Wolfers J, Zitzewitz E. Prediction Markets [Internet]. National Bureau of Economic Research; 2004. doi: 10.3386/w10504
  53. Dreber A, Pfeiffer T, Almenberg J, Isaksson S, Wilson B, Chen Y, et al. Using prediction markets to estimate the reproducibility of scientific research. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112: 15343-15347. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1516179112
  54. Hanson R. Could gambling save science? Encouraging an honest consensus. Social Epistemology. 1995;9: 3-33. doi: 10.1080/02691729508578768
  55. Almenberg J, Kittlitz K, Pfeiffer T. An experiment on prediction markets in science. PLoS One. 2009;4: e8500. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0008500
  56. Park IU, Peacey MW, Munafò MR. Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review. Nature. 2014;506: 93-96. doi: 10.1038/nature12786
  57. Bollen J, Crandall D, Junk D, Ding Y, Börner K. From funding agencies to scientific agency: Collective allocation of science funding as an alternative to peer review. EMBO Rep. 2014;15: 131-133. doi: 10.1002/embr.201338068
  58. Science B.0 on Twitter. In: Twitter [Internet]. [cited 22 Jun 2016]. Available: https://twitter.com/science_b0/status/710412421987508225
  59. Popper N. A Venture Fund With Plenty of Virtual Capital, but No Capitalist. The New York Times. 21 May 2016. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/business/dealbook/cryptoetherbitcoincurrency.ht ml . Accessed 22 Jun 2016.
  60. ScientistFive. Agora: A proposal to overcome the limitations of the current knowledge creation process [Internet]. Zenodo; 2015. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14969

Related papers

Blockchain in the management of science: conceptual models, promises and challenges
Artyom Kosmarski

ArXiv, 2020

Blockchain has received much attention recently, due to its promises of verifiable, permanent, decentralized, and efficient data handling. In 2017-2019 blockchain and associated technologies such as smart contracts has progressed beyond cryptocurrencies, and has been adopted in banking, retail, healthcare, and other fields. This study critically examines recent applications of blockchain in science, touching upon different stages of research cycle, from data management to publishing, peer review, research evaluation and funding. The paper is based upon a review of blockchain projects, relevant literature, a set of interviews and focus groups with startup founders, scholars, librarians, IT experts from the EU, USA, Russia, and Belarus. Proponents of blockchain for science present this technology as a tool to make science free from bias, red tape, data fraud, as well as provide innovative means to secure financial backing for new ideas. However, these projects face a set of challenges...

View PDFchevron_right
Towards a scientific blockchain framework for reproducible data analysis
Cesare Furlanello

ArXiv, 2017

Publishing reproducible analyses is a long-standing and widespread challenge for the scientific community, funding bodies and publishers. Although a definitive solution is still elusive, the problem is recognized to affect all disciplines and lead to a critical system inefficiency. Here, we propose a blockchain-based approach to enhance scientific reproducibility, with a focus on life science studies and precision medicine. While the interest of encoding permanently into an immutable ledger all the study key information-including endpoints, data and metadata, protocols, analytical methods and all findings-has been already highlighted, here we apply the blockchain approach to solve the issue of rewarding time and expertise of scientists that commit to verify reproducibility. Our mechanism builds a trustless ecosystem of researchers, funding bodies and publishers cooperating to guarantee digital and permanent access to information and reproducible results. As a natural byproduct, a pr...

View PDFchevron_right
A Blockchain-Based Architecture for Trust in Collaborative Scientific Experimentation
Mario Dantas

Journal of Grid Computing

architecture is implemented on Hyperledger, and a scenario about the genomic sequencing of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus is used to evaluate the architecture, discussing the benefits of providing traceability and trust in collaborative scientific experimentation. Furthermore, the architecture addresses the heterogeneity of shared data, facilitating interpretation by geographically distributed researchers and analysis of such data. Through a blockchain-based architecture that provides support on provenance and blockchain, we can enhance data sharing, traceability, and trust in collaborative scientific experiments.

View PDFchevron_right
A Novel Blockchain-Based Scientific Publishing System
Ruhi Tas

Sustainability

The scientific publishing industry is dominated by a few publishers that use centralized systems, which decrease the quality of studies and make the publication process longer. Traditional publication systems generally have high publication costs, slow and biased review processes, copyrights held by publishers, lack of rewards for contributors, lack of connection among researchers, etc. Accordingly, we propose a decentralized blockchain-based scientific publication platform to eliminate the traditional publication system deficiencies. The proposed system uses Ethereum smart contracts to accelerate the publication process and abate the biased evaluation process while reducing the publication cost. The proposed model also improves the quality of scientific studies by adding new features to the publication process. The proposed system increases the number of publishers, makes the publication process fully traceable, and makes scientific papers globally available to anyone with a small ...

View PDFchevron_right
Blockchain Technology for Data Management of Research Data: A Systematic Review and Proposed Research Design
Ronan Duchemin

2018

An ascending amount of scientific research is not replicable. This study aims to identify how blockchain technology can impact data management of research data. This is done by examining how blockchain technology for data management of research data can result in a higher rate of replicable studies. Three causes of the replication crisis have been identified: a lack of data quality, indefinite methodology, and the publication bias. This study evaluates whether or not blockchain technology can help reduce this. To do this, six characteristics of the new emerging technology have been identified: decentralization, timing data, data handling, security and reliability, programmability, and consensus mechanisms. Furthermore, the potential challenges and benefits of implementing blockchain technology for data management in the scientific community have been systematically mapped. The challenges that have been identified are: speed of transaction handling, scalability, security, and limitations of private keys. A negative relationship between scalability and security has been identified during the mapping of the challenges of blockchain technology for data management in scientific research. The identified benefits are: decentralized management, cost-efficiency, immutability, and improved security and privacy. Blockchain for data management of scientific research can result in a higher rate of replicable studies because of three reasons. Firstly, the issue of indefinite methodology can be addressed through the programmability characteristic of the blockchain. Secondly, this same programmability characteristic can be used to address the publication bias. Finally, the data quality can be improved through the security, immutability, and timestamping characteristics, and by the appropriate use of private keys.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Computer Science

    • Cited by

    Predicting knowledge creation through the use of knowledge acquisition tools and reading knowledge sources
    Chennupati K Ramaiah

    VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 2020

    Purpose The purpose of this research paper is to report about an investigation on the relationship between knowledge acquisition and knowledge creation to find out whether knowledge acquisition can predict knowledge creation. The study measures the concept of knowledge acquisition through the faculty use of knowledge acquisition tools and reading knowledge sources while measuring the concept of knowledge creation through the faculty use of knowledge creation tools and publishing knowledge sources. Design/methodology/approach The population of the study is faculty members in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The sample of the population consisted of 300 faculty members affiliated with 26 universities and colleges. Data was collected from the sample through questionnaire instrument. Stated hypotheses and Mathew’s theory of knowledge consumption–production correlation are tested and verified through correlation matrix and regression analysis. Findings Findings of the study revealed that ...

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved