IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v7y2019i2p33-d228339.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Publish-and-Flourish: Using Blockchain Platform to Enable Cooperative Scholarly Communication

Author

Listed:
  • Emilija Stojmenova Duh

    (Infinitcodex, Ltd., Maribor SI-2000, Slovenia
    Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana SI-1000, Slovenia)

  • Andrej Duh

    (Infinitcodex, Ltd., Maribor SI-2000, Slovenia)

  • Uroš Droftina

    (Infinitcodex, Ltd., Maribor SI-2000, Slovenia)

  • Tim Kos

    (Infinitcodex, Ltd., Maribor SI-2000, Slovenia
    Institute of Mathematics, Physics and Mechanics, Ljubljana SI-1000, Slovenia)

  • Urban Duh

    (Infinitcodex, Ltd., Maribor SI-2000, Slovenia)

  • Tanja Simonič Korošak

    (TSK Studio, Maribor SI-2000, Slovenia)

  • Dean Korošak

    (Institute for Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Maribor, Maribor SI-2000, Slovenia
    Faculty of Civil Engineering, Transportation Engineering and Architecture, University of Maribor, Maribor SI-2000, Slovenia)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Emilija Stojmenova Duh & Andrej Duh & Uroš Droftina & Tim Kos & Urban Duh & Tanja Simonič Korošak & Dean Korošak, 2019. "Publish-and-Flourish: Using Blockchain Platform to Enable Cooperative Scholarly Communication," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-15, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:7:y:2019:i:2:p:33-:d:228339
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/2/33/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/2/33/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John P. A. Ioannidis & Richard Klavans & Kevin W. Boyack, 2018. "Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days," Nature, Nature, vol. 561(7722), pages 167-169, September.
    2. John P A Ioannidis, 2005. "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(8), pages 1-1, August.
    3. Theodore C. Bergstrom, 2001. "Free Labour for Costly Journals?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 183-198, Fall.
    4. Carlsson, Hans & van Damme, Eric, 1993. "Global Games and Equilibrium Selection," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(5), pages 989-1018, September.
    5. Paul M. Romer, 2015. "Mathiness in the Theory of Economic Growth," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 89-93, May.
    6. Russell Cooper & Douglas V. DeJong & Robert Forsythe & Thomas W. Ross, 1992. "Communication in Coordination Games," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 107(2), pages 739-771.
    7. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    8. Jeffrey T Leek & Margaret A Taub & Fernando J Pineda, 2011. "Cooperation between Referees and Authors Increases Peer Review Accuracy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(11), pages 1-11, November.
    9. Vincent Larivière & Stefanie Haustein & Philippe Mongeon, 2015. "The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, June.
    10. Glenn Ellison, 1994. "Cooperation in the Prisoner's Dilemma with Anonymous Random Matching," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 61(3), pages 567-588.
    11. Brian C. Martinson, 2017. "Give researchers a lifetime word limit," Nature, Nature, vol. 550(7676), pages 303-303, October.
    12. Gall, Thomas & Maniadis, Zacharias, 2019. "Evaluating solutions to the problem of false positives," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 506-515.
    13. Martin A. Nowak & Karl Sigmund, 1998. "Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring," Nature, Nature, vol. 393(6685), pages 573-577, June.
    14. Glenn Ellison, 2002. "Evolving Standards for Academic Publishing: A q-r Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(5), pages 994-1034, October.
    15. M.A. Nowak & K. Sigmund, 1998. "Evolution of Indirect Reciprocity by Image Scoring/ The Dynamics of Indirect Reciprocity," Working Papers ir98040, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    16. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    17. Sabina Leonelli, 2018. "Rethinking Reproducibility as a Criterion for Research Quality," Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, in: Including a Symposium on Mary Morgan: Curiosity, Imagination, and Surprise, volume 36, pages 129-146, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    18. Thomas Gall & John P A Ioannidis & Zacharias Maniadis, 2017. "The credibility crisis in research: Can economics tools help?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-13, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mansur Beştaş & Ruhi Taş & Erdal Akin & Merve Ozkan-Okay & Ömer Aslan & Semih Serkant Aktug, 2023. "A Novel Blockchain-Based Scientific Publishing System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-16, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. S. P. J. M. Horbach & W. Halffman, 2019. "The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 339-373, January.
    2. David Card & Stefano DellaVigna, 2017. "What do Editors Maximize? Evidence from Four Leading Economics Journals," NBER Working Papers 23282, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. von Wangenheim, Georg & Müller, Stephan, 2014. "Evolution of cooperation in social dilemmas: signaling internalized norms," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100340, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    4. Qianjin Zong & Yafen Xie & Jiechun Liang, 2020. "Does open peer review improve citation count? Evidence from a propensity score matching analysis of PeerJ," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 607-623, October.
    5. Chun-Lei Yang & Ching-Syang Jack Yue & I-Tang Yu, 2007. "The rise of cooperation in correlated matching prisoners dilemma: An experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(1), pages 3-20, March.
    6. Yang, Yang, 2019. "Is Ignorance Bliss?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 68-82.
    7. Dag W. Aksnes & Liv Langfeldt & Paul Wouters, 2019. "Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    8. Annen, Kurt, 2003. "Social capital, inclusive networks, and economic performance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 50(4), pages 449-463, April.
    9. Rui Dai & Lawrence Donohue & Qingyi (Freda) Drechsler & Wei Jiang, 2023. "Dissemination, Publication, and Impact of Finance Research: When Novelty Meets Conventionality," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 27(1), pages 79-141.
    10. Michaeli, Moti, 2015. "Group Formation, In-group Bias and the Cost of Cheating," Economics Working Papers MWP2015/04, European University Institute.
    11. Bolton, Gary E. & Katok, Elena & Ockenfels, Axel, 2005. "Cooperation among strangers with limited information about reputation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(8), pages 1457-1468, August.
    12. Bayar, Onur & Chemmanur, Thomas J., 2021. "A model of the editorial process in academic journals," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    13. Mitzkewitz, Michael & Neugebauer, Tibor, 2020. "Can intermediaries assure contracts? Experimental evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 354-368.
    14. Chun Lei Yang & Ching Syang Jack Yue, 2004. "The Rise of Cooperation in Correlated Matching Prisoners Dilemma: An Experiment," Levine's Bibliography 122247000000000097, UCLA Department of Economics.
    15. Berger, Ulrich & Grüne, Ansgar, 2016. "On the stability of cooperation under indirect reciprocity with first-order information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 19-33.
    16. Fei Shu & Xiaojian Wang & Sichen Liu & Junping Qiu & Vincent Larivière, 2023. "Global impact or national accessibility? A paradox in China’s science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 263-277, January.
    17. Maria Bigoni & Gabriele Camera & Marco Casari, 2019. "Cooperation among strangers with and without a monetary system," Working Papers 19-01, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    18. repec:hal:cepnwp:hal-00841167 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Carattini, Stefano & Gillingham, Kenneth & Meng, Xiangyu & Yoeli, Erez, 2024. "Peer-to-peer solar and social rewards: Evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 340-370.
    20. Wang, Xiaofeng & Chen, Xiaojie & Gao, Jia & Wang, Long, 2013. "Reputation-based mutual selection rule promotes cooperation in spatial threshold public goods games," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 181-187.
    21. Wang, Chengjiang & Wang, Li & Wang, Juan & Sun, Shiwen & Xia, Chengyi, 2017. "Inferring the reputation enhances the cooperation in the public goods game on interdependent lattices," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 293(C), pages 18-29.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:7:y:2019:i:2:p:33-:d:228339. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.