Source: https://github.com/district0x/district-proposals/issues/94
In the current environment this process is controlled by many separate journals that focus on different specialties across the spectrum of fields. This process requires coordination of the journal to ensure proper referees are selected and then an editor ensures the works selected for publication. The reward for those doing the review is minimal (typically just a resume booster) and the editor of the journal is typically working to ensure the reviewers are a match for the topic and able to do quality work. After publication the journal charges universities and individuals exorbitant fees for access to the works that help fuel innovation. These high fees are charged even after public and/or government funding was used to do the research in the first place. This often leads author(s) to host a second version of their paper on a personal site ensuring their work is accessible to others who can’t afford to pay the journal’s fees.
Often, funding decisions are partially based off of how many papers a researcher has published. This has resulted in fraudulent and randomly generated papers designed to subvert this process by passing themselves off as real articles. This dilutes the quality of the research being done and diverts valuable resources away from legitimate endeavors instead of trying to pad stats or generate revenue.
This project aims to break down these barriers by allowing open access to the research created by the author(s) while simultaneously rewarding quality content with monetary rewards as well as a reputation score based on activities. The platform’s submission and review process will be transparent, allowing others to review previous correspondence and interactions with the author(s) and reviewer(s). Along with these features, it would be paramount to ensure that incentives are properly aligned to increase research productivity by reducing overhead of the review process, reducing the cost of referencing other works, reducing fraudulent activities, and rewarding those that do the best work.
To lower the barrier to entry of this platform it will be vital to ensure author(s) can easily interact with the platform. Ideally this would include a method of account creation and account funding outside of exchanges by providing an interface as easy to work with as Google or Amazon (the holy grail of DApp adoption). In general, those submitting to this platform would not be the most technically savvy since their area of focus is unlikely to be the use of computers (our differences make us better).
To help reduce fraud, the author will be required to make a non-trivial escrow payment, held by the platform (blockchain) to indicated the author’s intent on going through with the entire process. Once specific goals or thresholds are met this initial escrow can be distributed to the referees once their work is complete to provide incentive (payment) for their part of the process. When a paper completes the review process, the author(s) would eventually get a reward and would also be entitled to any proceeds the paper may garner (tips/donations/web traffic).
The platform would also build a reputation system for those involved in the process by being able to score each account based on success of each "published" paper. Those who submit content and those who review/referee content would all improve their reputation based upon the success of the papers they submit or review. Once a paper is "published" it can be released as an article on the platform or even grouped into a monthly publication that the journal produces for easier readability.
DP 94: Aristotle0x - Decentralized Peer Journal
Purpose
Currently the peer reviewed journal process is fraught with inequality and inefficiency due to fraudulent paper submissions, perverse incentives, and expensive paywalls barring access to newly published papers. This proposal is designed to solve these and many other issues with academic, scientific, government, and professional journals in order to ensure incentives are in-line for each party, improve the content of published research, and ensure instant access to newly completed research without needing to pay for a subscription. These efforts would help drive future scientific progress by reducing cost and incentivising quality submissions.Description
The traditional peer review process is designed to be a form of self-regulation where one or more people of similar competence evaluate the work of the producer i.e. author(s). By having those qualified in the profession able to provide expert feedback to the author(s), a feedback loop is created that allows the author(s) to refine their work. In turn, this assures that the final work maintains a standard of quality, improves the performance of the author(s), and provides credibility from trusted names in the field.In the current environment this process is controlled by many separate journals that focus on different specialties across the spectrum of fields. This process requires coordination of the journal to ensure proper referees are selected and then an editor ensures the works selected for publication. The reward for those doing the review is minimal (typically just a resume booster) and the editor of the journal is typically working to ensure the reviewers are a match for the topic and able to do quality work. After publication the journal charges universities and individuals exorbitant fees for access to the works that help fuel innovation. These high fees are charged even after public and/or government funding was used to do the research in the first place. This often leads author(s) to host a second version of their paper on a personal site ensuring their work is accessible to others who can’t afford to pay the journal’s fees.
Often, funding decisions are partially based off of how many papers a researcher has published. This has resulted in fraudulent and randomly generated papers designed to subvert this process by passing themselves off as real articles. This dilutes the quality of the research being done and diverts valuable resources away from legitimate endeavors instead of trying to pad stats or generate revenue.
This project aims to break down these barriers by allowing open access to the research created by the author(s) while simultaneously rewarding quality content with monetary rewards as well as a reputation score based on activities. The platform’s submission and review process will be transparent, allowing others to review previous correspondence and interactions with the author(s) and reviewer(s). Along with these features, it would be paramount to ensure that incentives are properly aligned to increase research productivity by reducing overhead of the review process, reducing the cost of referencing other works, reducing fraudulent activities, and rewarding those that do the best work.
How it would work
At a high level, this project can be thought of as a hybrid social platform (DApp) based on reputation combined with a typical journal model. Each user (author) would need an account that can be attributed to their work(s). If there were multiple authors on the submission they too could be tied into the submission. After submission of the research, the platform would identify those that are deemed "experts" in the field and randomize reviewers (referees). Once the referees have been selected they will have a predefined number of days (this will be configurable) to submit suggestions and revisions, at which point the author will then be given a specified number of days to make modifications. After a reviewer and author are in agreement that the work is completed to satisfaction, both parties must sign off to submit the final version to the platform. At this stage all reviewers have agreed with the author and the paper can then be considered "publishable" and available to anyone who wants access to it.To lower the barrier to entry of this platform it will be vital to ensure author(s) can easily interact with the platform. Ideally this would include a method of account creation and account funding outside of exchanges by providing an interface as easy to work with as Google or Amazon (the holy grail of DApp adoption). In general, those submitting to this platform would not be the most technically savvy since their area of focus is unlikely to be the use of computers (our differences make us better).
To help reduce fraud, the author will be required to make a non-trivial escrow payment, held by the platform (blockchain) to indicated the author’s intent on going through with the entire process. Once specific goals or thresholds are met this initial escrow can be distributed to the referees once their work is complete to provide incentive (payment) for their part of the process. When a paper completes the review process, the author(s) would eventually get a reward and would also be entitled to any proceeds the paper may garner (tips/donations/web traffic).
The platform would also build a reputation system for those involved in the process by being able to score each account based on success of each "published" paper. Those who submit content and those who review/referee content would all improve their reputation based upon the success of the papers they submit or review. Once a paper is "published" it can be released as an article on the platform or even grouped into a monthly publication that the journal produces for easier readability.
Topic Overview (In Progress - Whitepaper in Progress)
- Problems Solved
- Transparent Review Process
- See who the reviewer's are
- See reviewer(s) history and rating
- See reviewer(s) area(s) of expertise
- Reward author(s) and reviewer(s)
- Highly rated and highly referenced submissions will increase personal reputation and potential payouts.
- Open Access to each Paper (ideally stored on the blockchain)
- Open to anyone who wants to reference it for free
- Remove paywall, especially in the medical field where most grants are taxpayer funded.
- Open paper submission to anyone (lower barrier to entry)
- Encourage reproducing work presented in other papers
- This ensures results previously published are valid and can be reproduced in another (similar) setting (or can't be reproduced)
- Encourage publication of expected or negative results
- Research that has an expected or negative result is typically not published since it is not deemed important. This platform would allow and encourage these findings with reputation and reference rewards.
- Reduce submission of Spam
- Escrow payment possible to signal intent to publish
- Utilize Knowledge of the crowds
- District0x users can help determine usefulness and popularity while reviewers will be expected to maintain the quality of submissions.
- Transparent Review Process
- Journal Process
- Editor(s)
- Governing Body (District0x or experts)?
- Publish election and validation
- Areas of Peer Review Focus
- Professional
- Potential issues may arise here if the topic is not allowed to be shared publicly
- Scholarly/Research
- Government
- Medical/Clinical
- General
- An open area for those looking for review of their paper that are not necessarily looking to be published
- Professional
- Publishing Process
- Author(s) submit proposal
- Escrow payment to help to avoid/reduce spam
- Should a governing body or District0x token holders be able to vote on papers that may need escrow help due to its importance?
- Escrow payment to help to avoid/reduce spam
- Reviewers Selected
- Initially, this will be a large hurdle to overcome to ensure reviewee's are qualified in the field they are covering.
- An editor or experts in the field (perhaps the author(s)) could recommend potential reviewer(s)
- Review Process
- Checkpoints will be required to ensure that expectations and timelines are met (the time can be dynamic and enforced by a smart contract)
- Should be transparent with critique and/or suggestions provided when possible
- Publish Phase
- Once a predetermined number (3?) of reviewers accepts the paper it can be deemed as "published" on the platform
- At this phase all entities will start generating/gaining reputation scores
- Payout
- The initial escrow will be distributed between the reviewers and author(s) (This amount will be variable and dependant on the decision of requiring an escrow to start the review process)
- The payout will be handled by a smart contract on the blockchain and that will close out the publish process for the paper submitted
- Author(s) submit proposal
- User Experience and Visualization - i.e. Front End
- Streamline experience required
- Account creation and management
- Deposit/Withdrawal needs to be seamless for the author(s)
- Explore potential integration with the Open Science Framework
- Open source front end for presenting and managing the publication process
- Streamline experience required
- Data Storage and System Logic/Functionality - i.e. Back End
- Infrastructure
- Utilize a blockchain (Ethereum) to store papers, entity, and reputation data (Augur/d0xINFRA)
- Architecture
- Each paper, author, reviewer, etc. needs to be identified and a "profile" created around them.
- Each entity will have an activity and reputation score associated to them.
- Each paper needs to have bibliography/references linkable with reputation score
- This should help ensure references are reputable and the paper itself holds higher value
- Infrastructure
- Reputation (TO DO)
- Potential Revenue Streams
- Publish a "best of quarter" journal or journals with a specific topic (Example: AI research)
- While all research will be accessible for free a quarterly journal could be published that features the best articles or the most impactful.
- District0x token holders could help vote for the best articles on the platform
- This could be sent to those willing to subscribe to the quarterly digest as well as funding via selling ads in the digest.
- Philanthropy and/or donations
- It is not unusual for research to be funded by donations and this could be extended to the journal process
- Ad based revenue (not preferred)
- The web platform that serves the papers could have select ad's
- Publish a "best of quarter" journal or journals with a specific topic (Example: AI research)
No comments:
Post a Comment