Development of an open peer review system using blockchain and reviewer recommendation technologies

Choi, Dong-Hoon; Seo, Tae-Sul

doi:10.6087/kcse.237

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…First, Choi and Seo (2021) proposed a Publishing System based on the private blockchain Hyperledger and stored the papers in databases. It offers different types of open review together with closed review, specifically double-blind.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Blockchain solutions for scientific paper peer review: a systematic mapping of the literature

Farias Fávaro,

Marcelino,

Cechinel

2023

DTA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis paper presents a review of the state of the art on the application of blockchain and smart contracts to the peer-review process of scientific papers. The paper seeks to analyse how the main characteristics of the existing blockchain solutions in this field to detect opportunities for the improvement of future applications.Design/methodology/approachA systematic review of the literature on the subject was carried out in three databases recognized by the research community (IEEE Xplore, Scopus and Web of Science) and the Frontiers in Blockchain journal. A total of 1,967 articles were initially found, and after the exclusion process, the 26 remaining articles were classified according to the following dimensions: System Type, Open Access, Review Type, Reviewer Incentive, Token Economy, Blockchain Access, Blockchain Identification, Blockchain Used, Paper Storage, Anonymity and Maturity of the solution.FindingsResults show that the solutions are normally concerned on offering incentives to the reviewers' work (often monetary). Other common general preferences among the solutions are the adoption of open reviews, the use of Ethereum, the implementation of publishing ecosystems and the use of InterPlanetary File System to the storage of the papers.Originality/valueThere are currently no studies covering the main aspects of blockchain solutions in the field of scientific peer review. The present study provides an overall review of the topic, summarizing important information on the current research and helping new adopters to develop solutions grounded on the existing literature.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Blockchain solutions for scientific paper peer review: a systematic mapping of the literature

Farias Fávaro,

Marcelino,

Cechinel

2023

DTA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Um sistema pensado e desenvolvido por [Choi and Seo 2021], mostra o processo da implementac ¸ão do OPR no sistema da JISTAP (Journal of Information Science The-ory and Practice que foi realizada utilizando uma rede privada de blockchain baseada em smart contracts. A implementac ¸ão conta com um modelo de aceitac ¸ão gradual do processo de OPR, permitindo que os autores selecionem apenas os aspectos que se sentem confortáveis nessa forma de revisão.…”

Section: Revisão Aberta Por Paresunclassified

Projeto e Desenvolvimento de um Software de Apoio à Revisão Aberta por Pares

Pereira,

Tenório,

OliveiraJr

2023

Anais Da VII Escola Regional De Engenharia De Software (ERES 2023)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Ciência Aberta (CA) pode significar, desde práticas até iniciativas de pesquisa, com o objetivo de tornar o conhecimento acessível a toda a comunidade de interesse. Seus princípios incluem dados abertos para disseminação e transparência, acesso aberto para transferência mais rápida de conhecimento através de trabalho compartilhado, código aberto para o fácil compartilhamento de dados e ferramentas, métodos abertos para desenvolvimento de padrões para protocolos de coleta e metadados, recursos abertos para treinamento em métodos CA e, finalmente, revisão por pares aberta para alcançar rigor científico. Um dos pilares do CA é o processo Open Peer Review (OPR), um derivado do Peer Review (PR). Neste artigo, apresentamos o PeerVise, protótipo de plataforma colaborativa que dá suporte ao OPR. O protótipo foi desenvolvido seguindo as boas práticas de Engenharia de Software, e coletamos feedback de especialistas para validá-lo. Os resultados mostraram percepções positivas quanto à proposta do protótipo, facilidade de uso e sugestões de melhorias.

show abstract

“…Akran değerlendirmesi, kuramsal içeriğin ve bilimsel bulguların akran uzmanlar tarafından değerlendirildiği ve kalitelerinin resmi olarak onaylandığı bir süreçtir. Gönderilen makaleleri gözden geçirmek için doğru hakem atamak editörler için çok zor bir iştir (Choi ve Seo, 2021). Değerlendirmeyi yapacak hakem seçimindeki ölçütlerden biri, kişinin uzmanlaşmış olduğu konu ve alana göre belirleme/seçim yapmaktır (Ishag ve ark., 2019).…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

“…ele alınmıştır. Ayrıca, makaleye uygun hakem atamasının önemi ve gerekliliğini tartışan çalışmalar da(Akça ve Akbulut, 2020;Choi ve Seo, 2021; Ishag ve ark., 2019; Stelmakh ve ark. 2018; Wang ve Sun, 2018) alanyazında yer almaktadır.…”

unclassified

Bilimsel Yayın Deneyimleri: Editör, Hakem ve Yazar Olmak

CEYLAN¹,

BAKIR²

2022

E-International Journal of Educational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific research is very valuable in terms of disseminating science, sharing it with other researchers, and developing intellectual knowledge. Scientific publishing, in other words, academic journal publishing, which undertakes the task of sharing and disseminating scientific research, is a type of publishing that has emerged with a rapidly increasing momentum in recent years. This work was carried out to present the experiences of the editors, reviewers, and authors, who are the stakeholders of the publication process in educational journals, from their perspectives and to offer suggestions based on these data. The study was designed as a case study and used the qualitative research model. Based on the literature review, a semi-structured form containing parallel questions was prepared for editors, reviewers, and authors who have experienced the publication process in educational journals. The data were obtained through interviews on the Zoom platform. Due to Covid precautions and the fact that the researcher and the participants were in different cities of Turkey, the interviews were conducted online. Content analysis technique was used in the analysis of the data. In the process of examining the data set, codes, sub-themes, and themes were determined by using the inductive analysis technique. The theme, subtheme, and codes are given in the form of tables and supported by quotation sentences. According to the research findings, it was revealed that the editor, reviewer, and author views diverge in some points. Considering that the process includes tasks related to each other, it is possible to express that evaluating the same situation from different perspectives reveals the data that will enable the development of the scientific publishing process. The editor, reviewer, and authors' views expressed that the indexes provide a certain standard, on the other hand, cause scientific monopolization at some points have emerged. The editors determined that this duty contributed to both their career and academic development. In addition to the opinion that the reviewing task should be seen as an academic responsibility, it has been stated that there is a need for factors that will increase motivation for the execution of this task due to the workload it brings.

show abstract

Development of an open peer review system using blockchain and reviewer recommendation technologies

Cited by 8 publications

References 11 publications

Blockchain solutions for scientific paper peer review: a systematic mapping of the literature

Blockchain solutions for scientific paper peer review: a systematic mapping of the literature

Projeto e Desenvolvimento de um Software de Apoio à Revisão Aberta por Pares

Bilimsel Yayın Deneyimleri: Editör, Hakem ve Yazar Olmak

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About