DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Open Peer Review System based on Blockchain

블록체인 기반 공개 논문 심사 시스템

  • Received : 2019.07.06
  • Accepted : 2019.08.25
  • Published : 2019.11.30

Abstract

The researcher writes the result of the research in the form of paper. The submitted papers gets careful peer review by the reviewers and used for the development of academic studies after it gets published. There has been numerous debate about the review system, as the review process determines whether the results will be known to academia. In this paper, we investigate the problems in the present review system and propose a open peer review system based on blockchain. The proposed system has an open peer review structure unlike the existing one and ensures fair and in-depth evaluation through transparency. The system also provides a solution to the privacy and capacity problems that may arise from the use of blockchain. Lastly, we implement the proposed peer review system and show the results.

연구자는 연구 결과를 논문의 형태로 작성하여 학회에 투고하고 투고된 논문은 심사자의 면밀한 심사를 받은 뒤 학계에 공개되어 학문의 발전에 쓰인다. 이렇듯 심사 과정에 의해 연구 결과가 학계에 알려질지 결정되기 때문에 적절한 심사 시스템에 대해 많은 논의가 이루어지고 있다. 본 논문에서는 현재 심사 시스템에서 발생하고 있는 문제점들을 살펴보고 이에 대한 해결책으로 블록체인 기반 공개 논문 심사 시스템을 제안한다. 제안하는 시스템은 기존의 시스템과 다르게 개방적인 심사 구조를 가지며 투명성을 통해 공정하고 깊이 있는 평가를 보장한다. 동시에 블록체인을 사용함으로써 발생할 수 있는 프라이버시, 용량 문제에 대한 해결책을 제공한다. 최종적으로 제안하는 심사 시스템을 구현하여 결과를 보인다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This research was partly supported by the MSIT(Ministry of Science and ICT), Korea, under the ITRC(Information Technology Research Center) support program(IITP-2019-2014-1-00743) supervised by the IITP(Institute for Information & communications Technology Planning & Evaluation) and this research was partly supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) grant funded by the Korea government(MSIT) (No. NRF-2017R1C1B5075742).

References

  1. C. Ferguson, A. Marcus, and I. Oransky. "The peer-review scam," Nature, vol. 515, no. 7528, pp. 480-482, Nov. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1038/515480a
  2. M. Helmer, M. Schottdorf, A. Neef, and D. Battaglia, "Research: Gender bias in scholarly peer review," Elife, vol. 6, pp. e21718, Mar. 2017. https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.21718
  3. C. J. Lee, C. R. Sugimoto, G. Zhang, and B. Cronin, "Bias in peer review," Jounal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 64, no. 1 , pp. 2-17, Jan. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784
  4. R. Smith, "Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals," Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, vol. 99, no. 4, pp. 178-182, Apr. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1177/014107680609900414
  5. S. V. Rooyen, F. Godlee, S. Evans, N. Black, and R. Smith, "Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial," BMJ, vol. 318, pp. 23-27, Jan. 1999. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23
  6. Nature. Perspective: The pros and cons of open peer review [Internet]. Available: http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2006/06/perspective_the_pros_and_cons.html.
  7. Y. Guo, and C. Liang, "Blockchain application and outlook in the banking industry," Financial Innovation, vol. 2(1), pp. 24-36, Dec. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-016-0034-9
  8. A. Kosba, A. Miller, E. Shi, Z. Wen, and C. Papamanthou, "Hawk: The blockchain model of cryptography and privacy-preserving smart contracts," in Proceeding of IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), pp. 839-858, May. 2016.
  9. S. Tikhomirov, "Ethereum: state of knowledge and research perspectives," Springer Nature 2018, vol. 10723, pp. 206-221, Feb. 2018.
  10. Ministry of Science and ICT, Status of Science and Technology Papers(NSI) [Internet]. Available: http://index.go.kr/potal/stts/idxMain/selectPoSttsIdxMainPrint.do?idx_cd=1334&board_cd=INDX_001.
  11. Github. CCTV implementation code [Internet]. Available: https://github.com/DragonBeen/OpenPeerReview.
  12. Youtube. Demonstration CCTV cooperation authentication model using Ethereum platform[Internet]. Available: https://youtu.be/2YbanK0j1Zk