Decentralized Peer Review in Open Science: A Mechanism Proposal
Fuente:
arXiv
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866910426502004736 |
|---|---|
| author | Finke, Andreas Hensel, Thomas |
| author_facet | Finke, Andreas Hensel, Thomas |
| contents | Peer review is a laborious, yet essential, part of academic publishing with crucial impact on the scientific endeavor. The current lack of incentives and transparency harms the credibility of this process. Researchers are neither rewarded for superior nor penalized for bad reviews. Additionally, confidential reports cause a loss of insights and make the review process vulnerable to scientific misconduct. We propose a community-owned and -governed system that 1) remunerates reviewers for their efforts, 2) publishes the (anonymized) reports for scrutiny by the community, 3) tracks reputation of reviewers and 4) provides digital certificates. Automated by transparent smart-contract blockchain technology, the system aims to increase quality and speed of peer review while lowering the chance and impact of erroneous judgements. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2404_18148 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Decentralized Peer Review in Open Science: A Mechanism Proposal Finke, Andreas Hensel, Thomas Computer Science and Game Theory Computers and Society General Economics Economics K.3.m; K.4.2; K.4.3 Peer review is a laborious, yet essential, part of academic publishing with crucial impact on the scientific endeavor. The current lack of incentives and transparency harms the credibility of this process. Researchers are neither rewarded for superior nor penalized for bad reviews. Additionally, confidential reports cause a loss of insights and make the review process vulnerable to scientific misconduct. We propose a community-owned and -governed system that 1) remunerates reviewers for their efforts, 2) publishes the (anonymized) reports for scrutiny by the community, 3) tracks reputation of reviewers and 4) provides digital certificates. Automated by transparent smart-contract blockchain technology, the system aims to increase quality and speed of peer review while lowering the chance and impact of erroneous judgements. |
| title | Decentralized Peer Review in Open Science: A Mechanism Proposal |
| topic | Computer Science and Game Theory Computers and Society General Economics Economics K.3.m; K.4.2; K.4.3 |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.18148 |