Peer review, whether single-blind, double-blind, or open, is key to scholarly work. However, it has big problems. For example, there are not enough reviewers, delays are long, and the process lacks clarity. Additionally, quality varies, bias creeps in, and fraud sometimes happens. Could blockchain and decentralized systems help? Let’s find out.
The Traditional Problems
Reviewer Shortages & Delays
Over 70% of review invitations are turned down. As a result, decisions take months.
Lack of Transparency
Closed systems hide mistakes. Consequently, biased decisions go unchecked.
Inconsistent Quality & Conflicts
Reviews differ greatly. Moreover, hidden conflicts or fraud can harm trust.
Blockchain: Features That Fit Peer Review
Blockchain offers tools to improve peer review. For example, it solves issues like delays and bias. Moreover, it makes the process fairer.
Immutable and Transparent Ledger
Every review, date, and comment is saved forever. As a result, this builds trust. It also makes reviews easy to check. Additionally, open records prevent hidden errors.
Decentralized Consensus
Reviewers from around the world can join. Therefore, small, closed editorial groups aren’t needed. This creates a more diverse system.
Smart Contracts & Token Incentives
Blockchain platforms reward reviewers after they submit. For instance, tokens encourage faster, better reviews. Furthermore, this motivates more experts to participate.
Emerging Blockchain Peer Review Platforms
Nature reports that ResearchHub pays reviewers about $150 in tokens. For example, this encourages open, honest reviews. In fact, some reviewers earn more than in their academic jobs. Moreover, the system is open and easy to check. Additionally, it builds trust with clear records. Furthermore, it attracts skilled reviewers.
Ants‑Review (Ethereum)
This platform uses smart contracts. Reviewers stay anonymous and earn bounties. The community votes to check review quality.
Decentralized Prototypes (PubChain, BeerReview)
PubChain: Uses blockchain and IPFS to reward authors, reviewers, and readers. It also has fair moderation.
BeerReview: Tracks intellectual property and secures peer review using blockchain.
Research in Practice
Finke & Hensel (2024) suggest a system that mixes smart contracts, anonymized reviews, and tokens for reputation and trust.
Potential Advantages
- Faster Reviews: Rewards speed up the process.
- Trust & Accountability: Open records build trust.
- Recognition: Tokens reward their work.
- Broader Expertise: Open systems attract a wider and more diverse reviewer base.
Challenges & Caveats
- Complex Technology: Setting up blockchain is hard and costly.
- Quality Control: Rewards need rules to stop poor reviews.
- Academic Recognition: Tokens aren’t yet seen as scholarly credit.
Conclusion & Call to Action
Blockchain can transform peer review. For instance, it speeds up the process. It also makes reviews fairer and more open. However, change needs effort. Editors and researchers must act. Specifically, they should try new models. For example, mixing old systems with blockchain tools like rewards and open records works well. Additionally, these tools improve review quality. Moreover, they attract diverse experts.
Together, we can create a future-ready peer review system. Ultimately, it will reward hard work and spark new ideas.
Sources
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147913
https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.00580v3
https://eldorado.io/en/blog/decentralized-science-researchhub-crypto-peer-review/