fccoelho / Curso_Blockchain

Indtroductory course to cryptocurrencies and applications of Blockchain technologies.
GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0
202 stars 56 forks source link

Reviewer allocation in Decentralising scientific publishing #35

Open lucasmoschen opened 3 years ago

lucasmoschen commented 3 years ago

In the paper Decentralising scientific publishing: can the blockchain improve science communication?, I did not understand the "Reviewer Allocation" part.

The paper will be submitted to the network by the authors and the reviewers would search for these works and choose the right one to review, right? It seems a little inefficient since a reviewer would have to read several papers until finding a good one to analyze, wouldn't they? I'm not an expert on the topic, so I may be saying nonsense, but how would the reviewer know which work is interesting and good for reviewing? Should a recommendation algorithm be integrated?

I also did not understand the following sentence: " The first reviewers to turn in good reviews (according to the rating scale) will get paid." Suppose there is a good paper and several reviewers want to correct it. A lot of effort will be made, but only one will receive the price. I know this is good for some things, but it appears that science is losing time with that. It would be more reasonable (I guess) that an independent (random, possibly) editor had to send for a reviewer on the topic.

Thanks for the paper!

fccoelho commented 3 years ago

paper submission would mean that an author has some pre-print available on some already existing platform the she/he wants to be reviewed through the Dpublish Network. Reviewers wanting to get reputation and money for their services, can use a search engine to find the articles on queue to be reviewed. This search engine can be maintained by the dpublish network or an external partner (Journal) wanting to use the network to find reviewers. Naturally this search engines and/or recommendation system should work outside the blockchain application.

the second point:

We can have a Review contract where a specified number of reviewers (e.g. 2) can register to review a paper, once they register, they have a certain amount of time to deliver their review (say 3 weeks), if they don't, they are removed from the reviewer's list and some other reviewer can fill the vacant spot. In this way there is no wasted work. Once the review is turned in, the reviewer is paid, automatically, with the funds locked into it when the author registers the preprint for review.