Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Reformatted to fit your screen.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                         

public distributed ledger for scientific documents.

blockchain scientific journals
  (+9)(+9)
(+9)
  [vote for,
against]

Instead of Journals with peer review.

Maybe have a distributed system of trust and file storage.

Where instead of 'peer review panels', you have public cryptographically signed endorsement by other scientist.

The system of trust is a bit more top down, in that the root trust is university institutions (or any other root certs you implicitly decided to trust).

You can decide to endorse a paper, or you can endorse a scientist.

If you want to submit a new paper for review, you need to already have reviewed and endorsed/reject enough papers.

Every endorsement/rejection can contain a comment by the scientist on why it was accepted or rejected.

Any paper that was accepted by enough peers will then have a trail of endorsement/rejection by the scientific community. The university can then have a choice of saving or deleting it after a deadline (except for the historical ledger).

Multiple universities can host other universities papers, in exchange for cross endorsing them (Web of trust applies to university level).

-----------

Summary:

* University institution (or other trusted institution) can attest a scientist or professor

* Scientist can provide their attestation to a new document/scientist, and their attestation is recorded in a distributed ledger in various repositories

* Each repositories can then obtain a copy of a journal based on how well attested it is. E.g. Maybe a elitist journal repository will only store journals that has been attested by more than 3 tenured professors from ivy league universities. While another may decide that only 100 scientist and a single professor from any recognised universities will be needed to be stored as a local copy.

* To submit the presence of a new journal to the network, you need to have already attested or reject enough journals.

* Every attestation/rejection can contain a timestamped comment by institutions or scientist. (Twitter sized?) This would provide a way to have a public feedback for the original author.

mofosyne, Feb 19 2016

decentralized.science https://www.youtube...watch?v=DoKa7LYCkhw
baking? [mofosyne, Jan 10 2018]

github io page for decentralized science group https://decentralizedscience.github.io/
[mofosyne, Jan 10 2018]

[link]






       I don't like the idea of making all the least experienced scientists do the most reviewing.
Voice, Feb 20 2016
  

       IBM and the X Prize just posted a $5M challenge for uses of the Watson AI. Reviewing scientific publications might be an interesting one
theircompetitor, Feb 20 2016
  

       The problem is that the scientists lie so plausibly, and lard their lies with truth to make it delectable.
bungston, Feb 20 2016
  

       gr. "make *them* delectable"
pertinax, Feb 21 2016
  

       Voice, Feb 20 2016   

       Well, if that's an issue, since attestation in this particular approach is 'institution based' , the university can provide different 'ranked' attestation to different scientist based on their expertise level.   

       And each university can then have their own policy of what constitute a good enough paper to save based on who attest to it.
mofosyne, Feb 21 2016
  

       I think there needs be a boolean inverter. If everybody immediately agrees with a paper, that majority is more likely to be incorrect. If hardly anybody understands it or “gets it” then the paper is probably true, due to the well known laws of irony.
Ian Tindale, Feb 21 2016
  

       // I don't like the idea of making all the least experienced scientists do the most reviewing //   

       I think it's actually a good idea. There could be way too many papers for the really good scientists to have time to review carefully, so you have several less experienced scientists review it. Since those scientist NEED to build their credibility if they want to survive in the field, they will evaluate it carefully before putting a good or bad stamp on it. If a paper is widely approved or highly contentious, a few more experienced scientists will then take the time to review it and also review the other reviews.
scad mientist, Feb 22 2016
  

       Great point scad mientist,   

       Perhaps this method could help reduce the effect of publish or perish model of modern day journal system.   

       One could say that quality over quantity would be preferred in this system.
mofosyne, Feb 23 2016
  

       This is satire, right?
RayfordSteele, Feb 23 2016
  

       I strongly feel that ideas themselves (or truths) could be blockchained.
Ian Tindale, Jan 10 2018
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle