Blockchain based data-recording and rewarding system for Peer-reviewers

1. ScienceMiles
Digital currency for researchers
Date: April 18, 2018
Author: Zeeshan Jan
Supervisors: Prof. John Domingue
Dr. Allan Third

2. Agenda
• Peer-reviewing
• Benefits of peer-reviewing
• Types of peer-reviewing
• Issues with peer-reviewing
• Possible improvements
• Blockchain Technology
• Proposed Model
• Benefits of the proposed model
• Usecase
• Summary

3. Researchers’ activities
Writing Papers

4. Peer-reviewing
• “Peer review is designed to assess the validity,
quality and often the originality of articles for
publication.” – Wiley
• “It’s a process where scientists (“peers”)
evaluate the quality of other scientists’ work.”
– TheConversation

5. Benefits of peer-reviews
• Validating research
• Improve research quality
• Diversity of opinions
• Scrutiny (Substandard / Plagiarized)

6. Different types of peer-review
• Closed review
– Single blind
 “The anonymity allows reviewer to be honest without fear of criticism of
an author.” – Wiley
 “Allows for impartial decisions.” - Elsevier
✖ “Knowing author may overshadow the quality of the work.” - Wiley
✖ “Potential discrimination and bias.” – Wiley
✖ “Reviewer may use their anonymity to be unnecessarily harsh and
critical.” - Elsevier
✖ ”Author may be concerned if reviewers (in same field) could delay
publication, giving reviewers a change to publish first.” - Elsevier

7. Different types of peer-review
• Closed review
– Double blind
 Fair and bias-free
✖ Anonymity is not guaranteed
✖ Reviewers can often identify author through their writing style and self-
citation.

8. Different types of peer-review
• Open review
 Transparent
 Accountability
 Careful
✖ Fear of going public
✖ Could be reluctant to criticize

9. Peer-reviewing: Motivation for Individual
Researcher
• Motivations
– Giving back to the community
• Incentives
– CV
– Recognition platforms
• Publons (publons.com)
• Elsevier (reviewerrecognition.elsevier.com)
• PeerJ (https://peerj.com/)

10. Issues with peer-reviewing
• Can be slow and expensive
• Can be inconsistent
• Can be bias
• Can be abused
“Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals” – Richard
Smith

11. Possible Improvements
• Transparency – Openness
• Motivation – Recognition
• Incentivizing - Perks

12. Scientific/Technical Problems
• What are the requirements of the peer-
review process?
– Actual
– Potential
• How are the current methods (of peer-
reviewing) addressing to fulfill these
requirements?

13. What is a Blockchain

14. Blockchain
• Immutable
• Transparent
• Traceable
• Decentralized
• Distributed
• Secure
• Incorruptible
• Durable
• Robust
Image from: https://www.grantthornton.global/en/insights/articles/blockchain-could-it-transform-your-business-
model/

15. Scientific/Technical Problems
• How could the blockchain—based data
recording model addresses these
requirements? Which extra features could
it introduce?
• How could the blockchain-based
incentive model contribute to the peer-
review process?

16. Proposed Model

17. Benefits of the approach
• Transparency in the process
• Decentralized data
• Prevention of possible abuse of the peer-review
system
• Recognition
• Fair distribution of rewards for peer-reviewers
• Cryptocurrency (Spendable)
– Conference fee (partial / full)
– Priority queue
– Interchangeable with other cryptocurrencies
– Online shopping (Amazon/Ebay may be)

18. ESWC - usecase
• Open review data
• Semantic annotation
• Smart Contracts
• dApp

19. Thank you
Questions?