No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Autonomous, bidding, credible, decentralized, ethical, and funded (ABCDEF) publishing
F1000Research
Abstract
Scientists write research articles, process ethics reviews, evaluate proposals and research, and seek funding. Several strategies have been proposed to optimize these operations and to decentralize access to research resources and opportunities. For instance, we previously proposed the trinity review method, combining registered reports with financing and research ethics assessments. However, previously proposed systems have a number of shortcomings, including how to implement them, e.g., who manages them, how incentives for reviewers are paid, etc. Various solutions have been proposed to address these issues, employing methods based on blockchain technologies, called “decentralized science (DeSci)”. Decentralized approaches that exploit these developments offer potentially profound improvements to the troubled scientific ecosystem. Here, we propose a system that integrates ethics reviews, peer reviews, and funding in a decentralized manner, based on Web3 technology. This new method, named ABCDEF publishing, would enhance the speed, fairness, and transparency of scientific research and publishing.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Academic staff’s working conditions have been deteriorating for years. In particular, the reduced availability of both research funding and permanent research positions has continuously led to insidious competition and intense stress among academics. Whereas governing bodies have made significant attempts to narrow pervasive social inequalities in the distribution of research funding within the scientific community, they have not truly taken into account the importance of the academics’ overall well-being in the development of more sustainable financing of academic researchers. This originates not only from the complexity to develop comprehensive models reflecting staff’s overall well-being in the academic environment, but also from the limited access to reliable and immutable data that transparently account for the staff’s direct experience. In this context, blockchain technology can push further the use of more transparent survey data collection and record-keeping that can help mitigate the systematic bias inherent to the centralized nature of traditional auditing. We discuss how research institutions and governing bodies can build on blockchain technology and the early momentum generated by the decentralized science (DeSci) movement to implement the future-proof research funding chain that values overall well-being across academia in a transparent and coordinated way.
This article discusses the impact and significance of the autonomous science movement and the role and potential uses of intelligent technology in DAO-based decentralized science (DeSci) organizations and operations. What is DeSci? How does it relate the science of team science? What are its potential contributions to multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and/or transdisciplinary studies? Does it have any correspondence to the social movement organizations in traditional social sciences or the cyber movement organizations in the new digital age? Particularly, issues on DeSci to current professional communities, such as IEEE and its societies, conferences, and publications, are addressed, and the effort for the framework and process of DAO-based DeSci for free, fair, and responsibility sensitive sciences is reviewed.
One major source of exhaustion for researchers is the redundant paperwork of three different documents—research papers, ethics review applications, and research grant applications—for the same research plan. This is a wasteful and redundant process for researchers, and it has a more direct impact on the career development of early-career researchers. Here, we propose a trinity review system based on Registered Reports that integrates scientific, ethics, and research funding reviews. In our proposed trinity review system, scientific and ethics reviews are undertaken concurrently for a research protocol before running the study. After the protocol is approved in principle through these review processes, a funding review will take place, and the researchers will begin their research. Following the experiments or surveys, the scientific review will be conducted on a completed version of the paper again, including the results and discussions (i.e., the full paper), and the full paper will be published once it has passed the second review. This paper provides the brief process of the trinity review system and discusses the need for and benefits of the proposed system. Although the trinity review system only applies to a few appropriate disciplines, it helps improve reproducibility and integrity.
The article presents results of a research project aiming to develop theoretical and empirical contributions on participatory approaches and methods of citizen science for risk mapping and adaptation to climate change. In the first part, the paper presents a review of the literature on key concepts and perspectives related to participatory citizen science, introducing the concept of the “right to research”. It highlights the mutual fertilization with participatory mapping methods to deal with disaster situations associated to climate change. In the second part, the paper describes and presents the results and conclusions of an action-research developed on the coastline between the states of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 2017–2018. It involved affected communities as protagonists in mapping and managing risks of natural disasters caused by extreme climate events, by combining citizen science approaches and methods with Participatory Geographic Information Systems (PGIS) and social cartography. The article concludes by pointing out the contributions and limits of the “right to research” as a relevant Social Science approach to reframe citizen science from a democratic view.
Peer review is a necessary and essential quality control step for scientific publications but lacks proper incentives. Indeed, the process, which is very costly in terms of time and intellectual investment, not only is not remunerated by the journals but it is also not openly recognized by the academic community as a relevant scientific output for a researcher. Therefore, scientific dissemination is affected in timeliness, quality and fairness. Here, to solve this issue, we propose a blockchain-based incentive system that rewards scientists for peer reviewing other scientists’ work and that builds up trust and reputation. We designed a privacy-oriented protocol of smart contracts called Ants-Review that allows authors to issue a bounty for open anonymous peer reviews on Ethereum. If requirements are met, peer reviews will be accepted and paid by the approver proportionally to their assessed quality. To promote ethical behaviour and inclusiveness the system implements a gamified mechanism that allows the whole community to evaluate the peer reviews and vote for the best ones.
This study illustrates how citizen-driven radiation monitoring has emerged in post-Fukushima Japan, where citizens generate their own radiation data and measurement devices to provide public with actionable data about their environments. Drawing on eth-nographic fieldwork in and around Fukushima Prefecture, it highlights the multifaceted character of these bottom-up, citizen-led efforts, contrasting these initiatives with the emergence of "citizen participatory" science policy discourses in Japan. Recognizing the contested nature of citizenship in Japan and in the nuclear arena, the article considers how terms and definitions shape the participation of citizens and other stakeholders (local communities, public authorities, regulators, and professional scientists) in science and technology in culturally and historically specific ways. It builds on these observations to open up new spaces of expertise, which engage all stakeholders through social-scientific intervention.
Preregistration of study protocols and, in particular, Registered Reports are novel publishing formats that are currently gaining substantial traction. Besides rating the research question and soundness of methodology over outstanding significance of the results, they can help with antagonizing inadequate statistical power, selective reporting of results, undisclosed analytic flexibility, as well as publication bias. Preregistration works well when a clear hypothesis, primary outcome, and mode of analysis can be formulated. But is it also applicable and useful in discovery research, which develops theories and hypotheses, measurement techniques, and generates evidence that justifies further research? I will argue that only slight modifications are needed to harness the potential of preregistration and make exploratory research more trustworthy and useful.
Significance
Why do scientists with similar backgrounds and abilities often end up achieving very different degrees of success? A classic explanation is that academic achievement exhibits a “Matthew effect”: Early successes increase future success chances. We analyze data from a large academic funding program that present a unique opportunity to quantify the Matthew effect and identify generative mechanisms. Our results show that winners just above the funding threshold accumulate more than twice as much funding during the subsequent eight years as nonwinners with near-identical review scores that fall just below the threshold. This effect is partly caused by nonwinners ceasing to compete for other funding opportunities, revealing a “participation” mechanism driving the Matthew effect.
Background
Research Ethics Boards, or Institutional Review Boards, protect the safety and welfare of human research participants. These bodies are responsible for providing an independent evaluation of proposed research studies, ultimately ensuring that the research does not proceed unless standards and regulations are met.
Main body
Concurrent with the growing volume of human participant research, the workload and responsibilities of Research Ethics Boards (REBs) have continued to increase. Dissatisfaction with the review process, particularly the time interval from submission to decision, is common within the research community, but there has been little systematic effort to examine REB processes that may contribute to inefficiencies. We offer a model illustrating REB workflow, stakeholders, and accountabilities.
Conclusion
Better understanding of the components of the research ethics review will allow performance targets to be set, problems identified, and solutions developed, ultimately improving the process.
The consolidation of the scientific publishing industry has been the topic of much debate within and outside the scientific community, especially in relation to major publishers' high profit margins. However, the share of scientific output published in the journals of these major publishers, as well as its evolution over time and across various disciplines, has not yet been analyzed. This paper provides such analysis, based on 45 million documents indexed in the Web of Science over the period 1973-2013. It shows that in both natural and medical sciences (NMS) and social sciences and humanities (SSH), Reed-Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer, and Taylor & Francis increased their share of the published output, especially since the advent of the digital era (mid-1990s). Combined, the top five most prolific publishers account for more than 50% of all papers published in 2013. Disciplines of the social sciences have the highest level of concentration (70% of papers from the top five publishers), while the humanities have remained relatively independent (20% from top five publishers). NMS disciplines are in between, mainly because of the strength of their scientific societies, such as the ACS in chemistry or APS in physics. The paper also examines the migration of journals between small and big publishing houses and explores the effect of publisher change on citation impact. It concludes with a discussion on the economics of scholarly publishing.
The published journal article is the primary means of communicating scientific ideas, methods, and empirical data. Not all ideas and data get published. In the present scientific culture, novel and positive results are considered more publishable than replications and negative results. This creates incentives to avoid or ignore replications and negative results, even at the expense of accuracy (Giner-Sorolla, 2012; Nosek, Spies, & Motyl, 2012). As a consequence, replications (Makel, Plucker, & Hegarty, 2012) and negative results (Fanelli, 2010; Sterling, 1959) are rare in the published literature. This insight is not new, but the culture is resistant to change. This article introduces the first known journal issue in any discipline consisting exclusively of preregistered replication studies. It demonstrates that replications have substantial value, and that incentives can be changed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved)
Institutional review boards (IRBs) are integral to the U.S. system of protection of human research participants. Evaluation of IRBs, although difficult, is essential. To date, no systematic review of IRB studies has been published. We conducted a systematic review of empirical studies of U.S. IRBs to determine what is known about the function of IRBs and to identify gaps in knowledge. A structured search in PubMed identified forty-three empirical studies evaluating U.S. IRBs. Studies were included if they reported an empirical investigation of the structure, process, outcomes, effectiveness, or variation of U.S. IRBs. The authors reviewed each study to extract information about study objectives, sample and methods, study results, and conclusions. Empirical evidence collected in forty-three published studies shows that for review of a wide range of types of research, U.S. IRBs differ in their application of the federal regulations, in the time they take to review studies, and in the decisions made. Existing studies show evidence of variation in multicenter review, inconsistent or ambiguous interpretation of the federal regulations, and inefficiencies in review. Despite recognition of a need to evaluate effectiveness of IRB review, no identified published study included an evaluation of IRB effectiveness. Multiple studies evaluating the structure, process, and outcome of IRB review in the United States have documented inconsistencies and inefficiencies. Efforts should be made to address these concerns. Additional research is needed to understand how IRBs accomplish their objectives, what issues they find important, what quality IRB review is, and how effective IRBs are at protecting human research participants.
On 25 August, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy provided guidance for scientific publishing aimed at making publications and their supporting data-the products of federally funded research-publicly available without an embargo by the end of 2025. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, the publisher of Science and the Science family of journals) strongly supports this guidance. As written, several paths to public access remain possible. It will matter greatly to the scientific enterprise which become predominant.
Centralization has dominated classic scientific, social, and economic developments. Decentralization has also received increasing attention in management, decision, governance, and economics, despite its incomparability in AI. Going beyond centralized and distributed AI, this article reviews and delineates the conceptual map, research issues, and technical opportunities of decentralized AI and edge intelligence. The complementarity and metasynthesis between centralized and decentralized AI are also elaborated. We further assess where decentralized AI and edge intelligence can enable and promote smart blockchain, Web3, metaverse and decentralized science disciplinarily, technically, practically, and more broadly.
The size-dependent nature of the so-called group or departmental h-index is reconsidered in this paper. While the influence of unit size on such collective measures was already demonstrated a decade ago, institutional ratings based on this metric can still be found and still impact on the reputations and funding of many research institutions. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the fallacy of this approach to collective research-quality assessment in a simple way, focusing on the h-index in its original form. We show that randomly reshuffling real scientometric data (varying numbers of citations) amongst institutions of varying size, while maintaining the volume of their research outputs, has little effect on their departmental h-index. This suggests that the relative position in ratings based on the collective h-index is determined not only by quality (impact) of particular research outputs but by their volume. Therefore, the application of the collective h-index in its original form is disputable as a basement for comparison at aggregated levels such as to research groups, institutions or journals. We suggest a possible remedy for this failing which is implementable in a manner that is as simple and understandable as the h-index itself.
Registered Reports are a form of empirical publication in which study proposals are peer reviewed and pre-accepted before research is undertaken. By deciding which articles are published based on the question, theory and methods, Registered Reports offer a remedy for a range of reporting and publication biases. Here, we reflect on the history, progress and future prospects of the Registered Reports initiative and offer practical guidance for authors, reviewers and editors. We review early evidence that Registered Reports are working as intended, while at the same time acknowledging that they are not a universal solution for irreproducibility. We also consider how the policies and practices surrounding Registered Reports are changing, or must change in the future, to address limitations and adapt to new challenges. We conclude that Registered Reports are promoting reproducibility, transparency and self-correction across disciplines and may help reshape how society evaluates research and researchers. Registered Reports were introduced a decade ago as a means for improving the rigour and credibility of confirmatory research. Chambers and Tzavella overview the format’s past, its current status and future developments.
Scientific publication and its Peer Review system strongly rely on a few major industry players controlling most journals (e.g. Elsevier), databases (e.g. Scopus) and metrics (e.g. JCR Impact Factor), while keeping most articles behind paywalls. Critics to such system include concerns about fairness, quality, performance, cost, unpaid labor, transparency, and accuracy of the evaluation process. The Open Access movement has tried to provide free access to the published research articles, but most of the aforementioned issues remain. In such context, decentralized technologies such as blockchain offer an opportunity to experiment with new models for scientific production and dissemination relying on a decentralized infrastructure, aiming to tackle multiple of the current system shortcomings. This paper makes a proposal for an interoperable decentralized system for an open peer review ecosystem, relying on emerging distributed technologies such as blockchain and IPFS. Such system, named “Decentralized Science” (DecSci), aims to enable a decentralized reviewer reputation system, which relies on an Open Access by-design infrastructure, together with transparent governance processes. Two prototypes have been implemented: a proof-of-concept prototype to validate DecSci’s technological feasibility, and a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) prototype co-designed with journal editors. In addition, three evaluations have been carried out: an exploratory survey to assess interest on the issues tackled; two sets of interviews to confirm both the main problems for editors and to validate the MVP prototype; and a cost analysis of the main operations, both execution cost and actual price. Additionally, the paper discusses the multiple interoperability challenges such proposal faces, including an architecture to tackle them. This work finishes with a review of some of the open challenges that this ambitious proposal may face.
Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) have substantial power and authority over research with human subjects, and in turn, their decisions have substantial implications for those subjects, investigators, and the public at large. However, there is little transparency about IRB processes and decisions. This article provides the first comprehensive taxonomy of what transparency means (or could mean) for IRBs — answering the questions “to whom, about what, and by what mechanisms?” It also explains why the status quo of nontransparency is problematic, and presents arguments for greater transparency from the perspective of a variety of stakeholders. IRB transparency will make boards more accountable, improve the quality of their decision-making, facilitate consistency in board decisions, permit empirical study of IRBs, promote research efficiency, and advance trust in the research enterprise, among a variety of other benefits. Regulators should promote IRB transparency, IRBs themselves should commit to sharing as much information as they can within the confines of confidentiality requirements, and investigators can endeavor to take matters into their own hands by sharing IRB correspondence and IRB-approved protocols and consent materials.
This article calls into question the use of the h-index as an aid to decision-making in the higher education sector. The h-index is increasingly employed by institutions, funding bodies and even governments as a guide to the allocation of resources. This practice is contrary to the evidence that the h-index is intrinsically meaningless, a point which this article seeks to document in detail. Greater user of the h-index as a management tool can only lead to further inefficiencies in resource allocation within the higher education sector.
The distribution of research funds by key funding agencies in Canada and the U.S. is based on the idea of selectivity, i.e., the policy of NOT funding a significant fraction of the applicants. Despite the fact that this policy is superficially justified by the peer review-enforced goal of "excellence," in practice it tends to favor research along well-established lines and discourages novel approaches, innovation, and risk taking. Furthermore, the secretive nature of the funding system efficiently turns it into a self-serving network operating on the principle of an "old boys’ club." This even further undercuts the veneer of objectivity in the peer review assessment because funding panels can arbitrarily interpret reviews at their whim without oversight. Although the system calls itself "competition,", the idea of real interactive competition is actually betrayed. What we have, in fact, is a centralized and authoritarian quasi-socialist grant distribution system.
The article disputes the common belief that the major problem of a granting system is "government under-funding." On the contrary, it argues that much of a trivial research is actually OVER-funded. The main problem is the distribution system, not the overall level of funding. An alternative funding model is proposed. In a nutshell, it is a "fund researchers, not proposals" strategy. Drastic simplification of the funding process is advocated. The proposed measures are largely at odds with the present paradigm of selectivity and fierce competition as catalyzers of "excellence." The latter notion is dismissed as misleading. In order to see more innovation, we need a more uniform funding system (a sliding funding scale), even it means lower average funding levels.
Understanding Discourse trust levels.
- J Atwood
Atwood J: Understanding Discourse trust levels. Discourse.
2018 [cited 2022 Oct 5].
Reference Source
- Y Yamada
Yamada Y: Information related to the ABCDEF publishing article.
2023.
Publisher Full Text
How academic science gave its soul to the publishing industry.
- J Lloyd
Lloyd J: How academic science gave its soul to the publishing
industry. Issues Sci. Technol. 2020 [cited 2022 Sep 14].
Reference Source
A guide to DeSci, the latest Web3 movement.
- S Hamburg
Hamburg S: A guide to DeSci, the latest Web3 movement. Future.
2022 [cited 2022 May 25].
Reference Source
Liberal Radicalism: A Flexible Design For Philanthropic Matching Funds. SSRN 3243656.
- V Buterin
TMchain: A Blockchain-based Collaboration System for Teaching Materials.
- H Chou
Chou H, Lin D, Nakaguchi T, et al.: TMchain: A Blockchain-based
Collaboration System for Teaching Materials. J. Inf. Process. 2022;
30: 343-351.
Publisher Full Text|Reference Source
A Plural Decentralized Identity Frontier: Abstraction v. Composability Tradeoffs in Web3. arXiv [cs.CR].
- S Jain
Liberal Radicalism: A Flexible Design For Philanthropic Matching Funds. SSRN 3243656
- V Buterin
- Z Hitzig
- E G Weyl
Buterin V, Hitzig Z, Weyl EG: Liberal Radicalism: A Flexible
Design For Philanthropic Matching Funds. SSRN 3243656.
2018 [cited 2022 Sep 27].
Reference Source
A Plural Decentralized Identity Frontier: Abstraction v
- S Jain
- L Erichsen
- G Weyl
Jain S, Erichsen L, Weyl G: A Plural Decentralized Identity Frontier:
Abstraction v. Composability Tradeoffs in Web3. arXiv [cs.CR].