Blockchain for Open Science

  • Background:

     

    Open science is a new movement of science that aims to solve issues regarding low reproducibility of scientific results, difficulties of publishing insightful but uncommon articles, and overly subjective peer-review processes. An example of the scientific misconduct is the Schön scandal in physics where research groups were not able to reproduce the findings on replacing conventional semiconducting elements (e.g., silicon) with organic materials. Blockchain is a revolutionary technology that can provide transparency of scientific processes, ensure availability of scientific datasets and publications, and foster increased trust in scientific outcomes. Research on open science and blockchain is at an initial stage, and we are interested in a broad spectrum of topics that answer the question how blockchain can support open science.


    Objective(s):

     

    Possible topics include, but are not limited to:

     

    • Opportunities and challenges for leveraging blockchain in the field of open science
    • Management of scientific processes on blockchains
    • Blockchain-based applications for open science
    • Blockchain-based reputation and recommender systems in the field of open scienc

     

    This is an umbrella topic since topics of interest change rapidly. A specific topic will be selected during a first meeting.


    Introductory literature:

     

    • Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Www.Bitcoin.Org, 9.
    • Risius, M., & Spohrer, K. (2017). A Blockchain Research Framework. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 59(6), 385–409.
    • Yli-Huumo, J., Ko, D., Choi, S., Park, S., & Smolander, K. (2016). Where is current research on Blockchain technology? - A systematic review. PLoS ONE, 11(10), 1–27.
    • Dhillon, V. (2016). Blockchain-enabled open science framework. https://www.oreilly.com/ideas/blockchain-enabled-open-science-framework
    • Peters, M. A. (2014). Open Science, Philosophy and Peer Review. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(3), 215–219.