references.bib

@article{HauserIncent, 
author = {Hauser, Marc and Fehr, Ernst}, 
title = {{An Incentive Solution to the Peer Review Problem}}, 
issn = {1544-9173}, 
doi = {10.1371/journal.pbio.0050107}, 
pmid = {17439298}, 
pmcid = {PMC1852148}, 
pages = {e107}, 
number = {4}, 
volume = {5}, 
journal = {PLoS Biology}, 
keywords = {incentivization}, 
local-url = {file://localhost/Users/bt_neurospin/Documents/Papers%20Library/Hauser-An%20Incentive%20Solution%20to%20the%20Peer%20Review%20Problem-2007-PLoS%20Biology.pdf}, 
year = {2007}
}
@misc{HomEncr, 
author = {Buterin, Vitalik}, 
title = {{Exploring Fully Homomorphic Encryption}}, 
url = {https://vitalik.ca/general/2020/07/20/homomorphic.html}, 
year = {2020}
}
@misc{AIRA, 
author = {Frontiers}, 
title = {{Artificial Intelligence to help meet global demand for high-quality, objective peer-review in publishing.}}, 
url = {https://blog.frontiersin.org/2020/07/01/artificial-intelligence-to-help-meet-global-demand-for-high-quality-objective-peer-review-in-publishing/}, 
year = {2020}
}
@article{UPR, 
author = {Krummel, Matthew and Blish, Catherine and Kuhns, Michael and Cadwell, Ken and Oberst, Andrew and Goldrath, Ananda and Ansel, K. Mark and Chi, Hongbo and O’Connell, Ryan and Wherry, E. John and Pepper, Marion and Consortium, The Future Immunology and Brodsky, Igor and Chang, John and Arron, Joseph R. and Haining, Nick and Bhattacharya, Deepta and Anderson, Mark and Rothlin, Carla V. and Schwab, Susan and Belkaid, Yasmine and Molofsky, Ari and Savage, Pete and Mucida, Daniel and Iwasaki, Akiko and Victora, Gabriel and Ansel, K. Mark and Hamerman, Jessica and Masopust, David and Barton, Greg and Kaech, Susan and Woodruff, Prescott and Stetson, Daniel B. and Scharschmidt, Tiffany C. and Kedl, Ross and Zúñiga, Elina Isabel and Hoffmann, Alexander and Williams, Matt and Mayer-Barber, Katrin D. and Shin, Sunny and Bensinger, Steven and Lu, Li-Fan and Looney, Mark and Round, June L. and Amigorena, Sebastian and Yewdell, Jonathan and Sun, Joseph and Harty, John T.}, 
title = {{Universal Principled Review: A Community-Driven Method to Improve Peer Review}}, 
issn = {0092-8674}, 
doi = {10.1016/j.cell.2019.11.029}, 
pmid = {31835023}, 
abstract = {{Despite being a staple of our science, the process of pre-publication peer review has few agreed-upon standards defining its goals or ideal execution. As a community of reviewers and authors, we assembled an evaluation format and associated specific standards for the process as we think it should be practiced. We propose that we apply, debate, and ultimately extend these to improve the transparency of our criticism and the speed with which quality data and ideas become public.}}, 
pages = {1441--1445}, 
number = {7}, 
volume = {179}, 
journal = {Cell}, 
local-url = {file://localhost/Users/bt_neurospin/Documents/Papers%20Library/Krummel-Universal%20Principled%20Review-%20A%20Community-Driven%20Method%20to%20Improve%20Peer%20Review-2019-Cell.pdf}, 
year = {2019}
}
@article{zSNARK, 
author = {Reitwießner, Christian}, 
title = {{zkSNARKs in a Nutshell}}, 
url = {https://chriseth.github.io/notes/articles/zksnarks/zksnarks.pdf}, 
journal = {Ethereum blog}, 
local-url = {file://localhost/Users/bt_neurospin/Documents/PAPERS/zksnarks.pdf}, 
year = {2016}
}
@article{DecoupJ, 
author = {Priem, Jason and Hemminger, Bradley M.}, 
title = {{Decoupling the scholarly journal}}, 
doi = {10.3389/fncom.2012.00019}, 
pmid = {22493574}, 
pmcid = {PMC3319915}, 
abstract = {{Although many observers have advocated the reform of the scholarly publishing system, improvements to functions like peer review have been adopted sluggishly. We argue that this is due to the tight coupling of the journal system: the system's essential functions of archiving, registration, dissemination, and certification are bundled together and siloed into tens of thousands of individual journals. This tight coupling makes it difficult to change any one aspect of the system, choking out innovation. We suggest that the solution is the “decoupled journal (DcJ).” In this system, the functions are unbundled and performed as services, able to compete for patronage and evolve in response to the market. For instance, a scholar might deposit an article in her institutional repository, have it copyedited and typeset by one company, indexed for search by several others, self-marketed over her own social networks, and peer reviewed by one or more stamping agencies that connect her paper to external reviewers. The DcJ brings publishing out of its current seventeenth-century paradigm, and creates a Web-like environment of loosely joined pieces—a marketplace of tools that, like the Web, evolves quickly in response to new technologies and users' needs. Importantly, this system is able to evolve from the current one, requiring only the continued development of bolt-on services external to the journal, particularly for peer review.}}, 
pages = {19}, 
volume = {6}, 
journal = {Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience}, 
local-url = {file://localhost/Users/bt_neurospin/Documents/Papers%20Library/Priem-Decoupling%20the%20scholarly%20journal-2012-Frontiers%20in%20Computational%20Neuroscience.pdf}, 
year = {2012}
}
@article{DAOContr, 
author = {Morrison, Robbie and Mazey, Natasha C. H. L. and Wingreen, Stephen C.}, 
title = {{The DAO Controversy: The Case for a New Species of Corporate Governance?}}, 
doi = {10.3389/fbloc.2020.00025}, 
abstract = {{This paper reviews the recent case of The DAO “hack” in June 2016 and analyzes The DAO's response in its time of crisis, and its implications for corporate and IT governance. There was no human-led governance in The DAO. Instead, The DAO placed its trust in the smart contract they had built together on the blockchain, which became its governance mechanism. The events that follow allow us to see hitherto unobservable organizational behaviors that are unique to trustless organizations, and hence The DAO gives us a glimpse at a new species of corporate governance. This paper explores the implications of these ideas: we propose the emergence of a spectrum of organizations based on the alienation of trust, we consider the economic impact and legality of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), smart contracts, work and job design, and what happens when corporate governance is managed solely by IT governance.}}, 
pages = {25}, 
volume = {3}, 
journal = {Frontiers in Blockchain}, 
local-url = {file://localhost/Users/bt_neurospin/Documents/Papers%20Library/Morrison-The%20DAO%20Controversy-%20The%20Case%20for%20a%20New%20Species%20of%20Corporate%20Governance--2020-Frontiers%20in%20Blockchain.pdf}, 
year = {2020}
}
@article{TokenEcon, 
author = {Lee, Jei Young}, 
title = {{A decentralized token economy: How blockchain and cryptocurrency can revolutionize business}}, 
issn = {0007-6813}, 
doi = {10.1016/j.bushor.2019.08.003}, 
abstract = {{ As the underlying technology of bitcoin, blockchain is expected to create a new economic system by revolutionizing the way we communicate over the internet. Blockchain seeks to improve information security and transparency by sharing encrypted data among peer-to-peer (P2P) networks. Due to its emphasis on security and trust, there is increased demand for blockchain’s application in a variety of business sectors. The decentralized nature of blockchain creates the new concept of a token economy in which the community’s revenue can be allocated to the actual content producers and service users who create value. This article looks at how blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies are evolving and interconnected, creating a token economy through different business models. Blockchain is expected to be a key technology that enables new protocols for the establishment of a token economy in the future, leading to a new economic paradigm.}}, 
pages = {773--784}, 
number = {6}, 
volume = {62}, 
journal = {Business Horizons}, 
year = {2019}
}
@article{ConsAlg, 
author = {Mingxiao, Du and Xiaofeng, Ma and Zhe, Zhang and Xiangwei, Wang and Qijun, Chen}, 
title = {{A Review on Consensus Algorithm of Blockchain}}, 
doi = {10.1109/smc.2017.8123011}, 
abstract = {{Blockchain is the basic technology of bitcoin. With the value appreciation and stable operation of bitcoin, blockchain is attracting more and more attention in many areas. Blockchain has the characteristics of decentralization, stability, security, and non-modifiability. It has the potential to change the network architecture. The consensus algorithm plays a crucial role in maintaining the safety and efficiency of blockchain. Using a right algorithm may bring a significant increase to the performance of blockchain application. In this paper, we reviewed the basic principles and characteristics of the consensus algorithms and analyzed the performance and application scenarios of different consensus mechanisms. We also gave a technical guidance of selecting a suitable consensus algorithm and summarized the limitations and future development of blockchain technology.}}, 
pages = {2567--2572}, 
journal = {2017 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC)}, 
local-url = {file://localhost/Users/bt_neurospin/Documents/Papers%20Library/Mingxiao-A%20Review%20on%20Consensus%20Algorithm%20of%20Blockchain-2017-2017%20IEEE%20International%20Conference%20on%20Systems,%20Man,%20and%20Cybernetics%20(SMC).pdf}, 
year = {2017}
}
@article{QVWeyl, 
author = {Weyl, E. Glen}, 
title = {{The robustness of quadratic voting}}, 
issn = {0048-5829}, 
doi = {10.1007/s11127-017-0405-4}, 
abstract = {{Lalley and Weyl (Quadratic voting, 2016) propose a mechanism for binary collective decisions, Quadratic Voting (QV), and prove its approximate efficiency in large populations in a stylized environment. They motivate their proposal substantially based on its greater robustness when compared with pre-existing efficient collective decision mechanisms. However, these suggestions are based purely on discussion of structural properties of the mechanism. In this paper, I study these robustness properties quantitatively in an equilibrium model. Given the mathematical challenges with establishing results on QV fully formally, my analysis relies on a number of structural conjectures that have been proven in analogous settings in the literature, but in the models I consider here. While most of the factors I study reduce the efficiency of QV to some extent, it is reasonably robust to all of them and quite robustly outperforms one-person-one-vote. Collusion and fraud, except on a very large scale, are deterred either by unilateral deviation incentives or by the reactions of non-participants to the possibility of their occurring. I am able to study aggregate uncertainty only for particular parametric distributions, but using the most canonical structures in the literature I find that such uncertainty reduces limiting efficiency, but never by a large magnitude. Voter mistakes or non-instrumental motivations for voting, so long as they are uncorrelated with values, may either enhance or harm efficiency depending on the setting. These findings contrast with existing (approximately) efficient mechanisms, all of which are highly sensitive to at least one of these factors.}}, 
pages = {75--107}, 
number = {1-2}, 
volume = {172}, 
journal = {Public Choice}, 
local-url = {file://localhost/Users/bt_neurospin/Documents/Papers%20Library/Weyl-The%20robustness%20of%20quadratic%20voting-2017-Public%20Choice.pdf}, 
year = {2017}
}
@article{BountyGit, 
author = {Zhou, Jiayuan and Wang, Shaowei and Bezemer, Cor-Paul and Zou, Ying and Hassan, Ahmed E}, 
title = {{Bounties in Open Source Development on GitHub: A Case Study of Bountysource Bounties}}, 
eprint = {1904.02724}, 
abstract = {{Due to the voluntary nature of open source software, it can be hard to find a developer to work on a particular task. For example, some issue reports may be too cumbersome and unexciting for someone to volunteer to do them, yet these issue reports may be of high priority to the success of a project. To provide an incentive for implementing such issue reports, one can propose a monetary reward, i.e., a bounty, to the developer who completes that particular task. In this paper, we study bounties in open source projects on GitHub to better understand how bounties can be leveraged to evolve such projects in terms of addressing issue reports. We investigated 5,445 bounties for GitHub projects. These bounties were proposed through the Bountysource platform with a total bounty value of \$406,425. We find that 1) in general, the timing of proposing bounties and the bounty-usage frequency are the most important factors that impact the likelihood of an issue being addressed. More specifically, issue reports are more likely to be addressed if they are for projects in which bounties are used more frequently and if they are proposed earlier. 2) The bounty value that an issue report has is the most important factor that impacts the issue-addressing likelihood in the projects in which no bounties were used before. Backers in such projects proposed higher bounty values to get issues addressed. 3) There is a risk of wasting money for backers who invest money on long-standing issue reports.}}, 
journal = {arXiv}, 
local-url = {file://localhost/Users/bt_neurospin/Documents/Papers%20Library/Zhou-Bounties%20in%20Open%20Source%20Development%20on%20GitHub-%20A%20Case%20Study%20of%20Bountysource%20Bounties-2019-arXiv.pdf}, 
year = {2019}
}
@article{BlockchainforScience, 
author = {Bartling, Sönke and document, \& contributors to living}, 
title = {{Blockchain for Science and knowledge creation.}}, 
doi = {10.5281/zenodo.401369}, 
url = {https://www.blockchainforscience.com/2017/02/23/blockchain-for-open-science-the-living-document/}, 
journal = {Zenodo}, 
year = {2016}
}
@article{ReducingWaste-Lancet, 
author = {Glasziou, Paul and Altman, Douglas G and Bossuyt, Patrick and Boutron, Isabelle and Clarke, Mike and Julious, Steven and Michie, Susan and Moher, David and Wager, Elizabeth}, 
title = {{Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research}}, 
issn = {0140-6736}, 
doi = {10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62228-x}, 
pmid = {24411647}, 
abstract = {{Research publication can both communicate and miscommunicate. Unless research is adequately reported, the time and resources invested in the conduct of research is wasted. Reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, STARD, PRISMA, and ARRIVE aim to improve the quality of research reports, but all are much less adopted and adhered to than they should be. Adequate reports of research should clearly describe which questions were addressed and why, what was done, what was shown, and what the findings mean. However, substantial failures occur in each of these elements. For example, studies of published trial reports showed that the poor description of interventions meant that 40–89\% were non-replicable; comparisons of protocols with publications showed that most studies had at least one primary outcome changed, introduced, or omitted; and investigators of new trials rarely set their findings in the context of a systematic review, and cited a very small and biased selection of previous relevant trials. Although best documented in reports of controlled trials, inadequate reporting occurs in all types of studies—animal and other preclinical studies, diagnostic studies, epidemiological studies, clinical prediction research, surveys, and qualitative studies. In this report, and in the Series more generally, we point to a waste at all stages in medical research. Although a more nuanced understanding of the complex systems involved in the conduct, writing, and publication of research is desirable, some immediate action can be taken to improve the reporting of research. Evidence for some recommendations is clear: change the current system of research rewards and regulations to encourage better and more complete reporting, and fund the development and maintenance of infrastructure to support better reporting, linkage, and archiving of all elements of research. However, the high amount of waste also warrants future investment in the monitoring of and research into reporting of research, and active implementation of the findings to ensure that research reports better address the needs of the range of research users.}}, 
pages = {267--276}, 
number = {9913}, 
volume = {383}, 
journal = {The Lancet}, 
year = {2014}
}
@article{Warne-RewRev, 
author = {Warne, Verity}, 
title = {{Rewarding reviewers – sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained}}, 
issn = {1741-4857}, 
doi = {10.1002/leap.1002}, 
abstract = {{In July 2015, Wiley surveyed over 170,000 researchers in order to explore peer reviewing experience; attitudes towards recognition and reward for reviewers; and training requirements. The survey received 2,982 usable responses (a response rate of 1.7\%). Respondents from all markets indicated similar levels of review activity. However, analysis of reviewer and corresponding author data suggests that US researchers in fact bear a disproportionate burden of review, while Chinese authors publish twice as much as they review. Results show that while reviewers choose to review in order to give back to the community, there is more perceived benefit in interacting with the community of a top-ranking journal than a low-ranking one. The majority of peer review training received by respondents has come either in the form of journal guidelines or informally as advice from supervisors or colleagues. Seventy-seven per cent show an interest in receiving further reviewer training. Reviewers strongly believe that reviewing is inadequately acknowledged at present and should carry more weight in their institutions' evaluation process. Respondents value recognition initiatives related to receiving feedback from the journal over monetary rewards and payment in kind. Questions raised include how to evenly expand the reviewer pool, provide training throughout the researcher career arc, and deliver consistent evaluation and recognition for reviewers.}}, 
pages = {41--50}, 
number = {1}, 
volume = {29}, 
journal = {Learned Publishing}, 
keywords = {reward,incentivization}, 
local-url = {file://localhost/Users/bt_neurospin/Documents/Papers%20Library/Warne-Rewarding%20reviewers%20–%20sense%20or%20sensibility-%20A%20Wiley%20study%20explained-2016-Learned%20Publishing.pdf}, 
year = {2016}, 
rating = {4}
}
@article{Ethereum-Wood, 
author = {Wood, Gavin}, 
title = {{Ethereum:  a secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger}}, 
journal = {Yellowpaper}, 
local-url = {file://localhost/Users/bt_neurospin/Downloads/Paper.pdf}, 
year = {2017}
}
@article{OPR-Ross-Hellauer, 
author = {Ross-Hellauer, Tony}, 
title = {{What is open peer review? A systematic review}}, 
issn = {2046-1402}, 
doi = {10.12688/f1000research.11369.2}, 
pmid = {28580134}, 
abstract = {{Background : “Open peer review” (OPR), despite being a major pillar of Open Science, has neither a standardized definition nor an agreed schema of its features and implementations. The literature reflects this, with numerous overlapping and contradictory definitions. While for some the term refers to peer review where the identities of both author and reviewer are disclosed to each other, for others it signifies systems where reviewer reports are published alongside articles. For others it signifies both of these conditions, and for yet others it describes systems where not only “invited experts” are able to comment. For still others, it includes a variety of combinations of these and other novel methods. Methods : Recognising the absence of a consensus view on what open peer review is, this article undertakes a systematic review of definitions of “open peer review” or “open review”, to create a corpus of 122 definitions. These definitions are systematically analysed to build a coherent typology of the various innovations in peer review signified by the term, and hence provide the precise technical definition currently lacking. Results : This quantifiable data yields rich information on the range and extent of differing definitions over time and by broad subject area. Quantifying definitions in this way allows us to accurately portray exactly how ambiguously the phrase “open peer review” has been used thus far, for the literature offers 22 distinct configurations of seven traits, effectively meaning that there are 22 different definitions of OPR in the literature reviewed. Conclusions : I propose a pragmatic definition of open peer review as an umbrella term for a number of overlapping ways that peer review models can be adapted in line with the aims of Open Science, including making reviewer and author identities open, publishing review reports and enabling greater participation in the peer review process.}}, 
pages = {588}, 
volume = {6}, 
journal = {F1000Research}, 
keywords = {open peer-review,peer-review,OPR}, 
local-url = {file://localhost/Users/bt_neurospin/Documents/Papers%20Library/Ross-Hellauer-What%20is%20open%20peer%20review-%20A%20systematic%20review-2017-F1000Research.pdf}, 
year = {2017}, 
rating = {5}
}
@article{Kendall-peerrev, 
author = {Powell, Kendall}, 
title = {{The waiting game}}, 
pages = {148--151}, 
volume = {530}, 
journal = {Nature}, 
local-url = {file://localhost/Users/bt_neurospin/Documents/Papers%20Library/www.nature.com%2002062020,%20182528.pdf}, 
year = {2016}, 
rating = {4}
}
@article{RossHellauer-OPR, 
author = {Ross-Hellauer, Tony and Görögh, Edit}, 
title = {{Guidelines for open peer review implementation}}, 
doi = {10.1186/s41073-019-0063-9}, 
pmid = {30858990}, 
abstract = {{Open peer review (OPR) is moving into the mainstream, but it is often poorly understood and surveys of researcher attitudes show important barriers to implementation. As more journals move to implement and experiment with the myriad of innovations covered by this term, there is a clear need for best practice guidelines to guide implementation. This brief article aims to address this knowledge gap, reporting work based on an interactive stakeholder workshop to create best-practice guidelines for editors and journals who wish to transition to OPR. Although the advice is aimed mainly at editors and publishers of scientific journals, since this is the area in which OPR is at its most mature, many of the principles may also be applicable for the implementation of OPR in other areas (e.g., books, conference submissions).}}, 
pages = {4}, 
number = {1}, 
volume = {4}, 
journal = {Research Integrity and Peer Review}, 
keywords = {open peer-review,OPR,peer-review}, 
local-url = {file://localhost/Users/bt_neurospin/Documents/Papers%20Library/Ross-Hellauer-Guidelines%20for%20open%20peer%20review%20implementation-2019-Research%20Integrity%20and%20Peer%20Review.pdf}, 
year = {2019}, 
rating = {4}
}
@article{PeerRev-NatComm, 
author = {Bravo, Giangiacomo and Grimaldo, Francisco and López-Iñesta, Emilia and Mehmani, Bahar and Squazzoni, Flaminio}, 
title = {{The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals}}, 
doi = {10.1038/s41467-018-08250-2}, 
pmid = {30659186}, 
abstract = {{To increase transparency in science, some scholarly journals are publishing peer review reports. But it is unclear how this practice affects the peer review process. Here, we examine the effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals involved in a pilot study at Elsevier. By considering 9,220 submissions and 18,525 reviews from 2010 to 2017, we measured changes both before and during the pilot and found that publishing reports did not significantly compromise referees’ willingness to review, recommendations, or turn-around times. Younger and non-academic scholars were more willing to accept to review and provided more positive and objective recommendations. Male referees tended to write more constructive reports during the pilot. Only 8.1\% of referees agreed to reveal their identity in the published report. These findings suggest that open peer review does not compromise the process, at least when referees are able to protect their anonymity. To increase transparency in science, some scholarly journals have begun publishing peer review reports. Here, the authors show how this policy shift affects reviewer behavior by analyzing data from five journals piloting open peer review.}}, 
pages = {322}, 
number = {1}, 
volume = {10}, 
journal = {Nature Communications}, 
local-url = {file://localhost/Users/bt_neurospin/Documents/Papers%20Library/Bravo-The%20effect%20of%20publishing%20peer%20review%20reports%20on%20referee%20behavior%20in%20five%20scholarly%20journals-2019-Nature%20Communications.pdf}, 
year = {2019}, 
rating = {4}
}
@article{Gropp-PeerRevStress, 
author = {Gropp, Robert E and Glisson, Scott and Gallo, Stephen and Thompson, Lisa}, 
title = {{Peer Review: A System under Stress}}, 
issn = {0006-3568}, 
doi = {10.1093/biosci/bix034}, 
pages = {407--410}, 
number = {5}, 
volume = {67}, 
journal = {BioScience}, 
keywords = {incentivization,proposal,peer-review}, 
local-url = {file://localhost/Users/bt_neurospin/Documents/Papers%20Library/Gropp-Peer%20Review-%20A%20System%20under%20Stress-2017-BioScience.pdf}, 
year = {2017}, 
rating = {4}
}
@article{Bitcoin-Nature-focus, 
author = {Extance, Andy}, 
title = {{Could Bitcoin technology help science?}}, 
issn = {0028-0836}, 
doi = {10.1038/d41586-017-08589-4}, 
pmid = {32086492}, 
abstract = {{Blockchain could lend security measures to the scientific process, but the approach has its own risks. Blockchain could lend security measures to the scientific process, but the approach has its own risks.}}, 
pages = {301--302}, 
number = {7685}, 
volume = {552}, 
journal = {Nature}, 
local-url = {file://localhost/Users/bt_neurospin/Documents/Papers%20Library/Extance-Could%20Bitcoin%20technology%20help%20science--2017-Nature.pdf}, 
year = {2017}
}
@article{Walker2015-trends, 
author = {Walker, Richard and Silva, Pascal Rocha da}, 
title = {{Emerging trends in peer review—a survey}}, 
issn = {1662-4548}, 
doi = {10.3389/fnins.2015.00169}, 
pmid = {26074753}, 
pmcid = {PMC4444765}, 
abstract = {{“Classical peer review” has been subject to intense criticism for slowing down the publication process, bias against specific categories of paper and author, unreliability, inability to detect errors and fraud, unethical practices, and the lack of recognition for unpaid reviewers. This paper surveys innovative forms of peer review that attempt to address these issues. Based on an initial literature review, we construct a sample of 82 channels of scientific communication covering all forms of review identified by the survey, and analyze the review mechanisms used by each channel. We identify two major trends: the rapidly expanding role of preprint servers (e.g., ArXiv) that dispense with traditional peer review altogether, and the growth of “non-selective review,” focusing on papers' scientific quality rather than their perceived importance and novelty. Other potentially important developments include forms of “open review,” which remove reviewer anonymity, and interactive review, as well as new mechanisms for post-publication review and out-of-channel reader commentary, especially critical commentary targeting high profile papers. One of the strongest findings of the survey is the persistence of major differences between the peer review processes used by different disciplines. None of these differences is likely to disappear in the foreseeable future. The most likely scenario for the coming years is thus continued diversification, in which different review mechanisms serve different author, reader, and publisher needs. Relatively little is known about the impact of these innovations on the problems they address. These are important questions for future quantitative research.}}, 
pages = {169}, 
volume = {9}, 
journal = {Frontiers in Neuroscience}, 
keywords = {peer-review,REVIEW}, 
local-url = {file://localhost/Users/bt_neurospin/Documents/Papers%20Library/Walker-Emerging%20trends%20in%20peer%20review—a%20survey-2015-Frontiers%20in%20Neuroscience.pdf}, 
year = {2015}, 
rating = {5}
}
@article{tragedy-reviewers, 
author = {Albuquerque, Ulysses Paulino de}, 
title = {{The tragedy of the common reviewers: the peer review process}}, 
issn = {0102-695X}, 
doi = {10.1590/s0102-695x2011005000036}, 
abstract = {{The peer review process is the dominant system adopted in science to evaluate the quality of articles submitted for publication. Various social players are involved in this process, including authors, editors and reviewers. Much has been discussed about the need to improve the scientific quality of what is published. The main focus of these discussions has been the work of the authors. However, the editors and reviewers also fulfill an important role. In this opinion article, we discuss some proposals to improve the peer review system, emphasizing the role of reviewers and editors.}}, 
pages = {1--3}, 
number = {1}, 
volume = {21}, 
journal = {Revista Brasileira de Farmacognosia}, 
keywords = {Peer-review}, 
local-url = {file://localhost/Users/bt_neurospin/Documents/Papers%20Library/Albuquerque-The%20tragedy%20of%20the%20common%20reviewers-%20the%20peer%20review%20process-2011-Revista%20Brasileira%20de%20Farmacognosia.pdf}, 
year = {2011}, 
rating = {4}
}
@article{Walsh200-openpeerrev, 
author = {Walsh, Elizabeth and Rooney, Maeve and Appleby, Louis and Wilkinson, Greg}, 
title = {{Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial}}, 
issn = {0007-1250}, 
doi = {10.1192/bjp.176.1.47}, 
pmid = {10789326}, 
abstract = {{Background Most scientific journals practise anonymous peer review. There is no evidence, however, that this is any better than an open system. Aims To evaluate the feasibility of an open peer review system. Method Reviewers for the British Journal of Psychiatry were asked whether they would agree to have their name revealed to the authors whose papers they review; 408 manuscripts assigned to reviewers who agreed were randomised to signed or unsigned groups. We measured review quality, tone, recommendation for publication and time taken to complete each review. Results A total of 245 reviewers (76\%) agreed to sign. Signed reviews were of higher quality, were more courteous and took longer to complete than unsigned reviews. Reviewers who signed were more likely to recommend publication. Conclusions This study supports the feasibility of an open peer review system and identifies such a system's potential drawbacks.}}, 
pages = {47--51}, 
number = {1}, 
volume = {176}, 
journal = {British Journal of Psychiatry}, 
local-url = {file://localhost/Users/bt_neurospin/Documents/Papers%20Library/Walsh-Open%20peer%20review-%20A%20randomised%20controlled%20trial-2000-British%20Journal%20of%20Psychiatry.pdf}, 
year = {2000}, 
rating = {2}
}
@article{IPFS, 
author = {Benet, Juan}, 
title = {{IPFS - Content Addressed, Versioned, P2P File System}}, 
eprint = {1407.3561}, 
abstract = {{The InterPlanetary File System (IPFS) is a peer-to-peer distributed file system that seeks to connect all computing devices with the same system of files. In some ways, IPFS is similar to the Web, but IPFS could be seen as a single BitTorrent swarm, exchanging objects within one Git repository. In other words, IPFS provides a high throughput content-addressed block storage model, with content-addressed hyper links. This forms a generalized Merkle DAG, a data structure upon which one can build versioned file systems, blockchains, and even a Permanent Web. IPFS combines a distributed hashtable, an incentivized block exchange, and a self-certifying namespace. IPFS has no single point of failure, and nodes do not need to trust each other.}}, 
journal = {arXiv}, 
local-url = {file://localhost/Users/bt_neurospin/Downloads/ipdf.pdf}, 
year = {2014}, 
rating = {3}
}
@article{Wang-DAO, 
author = {Wang, Shuai and Ding, Wenwen and Li, Juanjuan and Yuan, Yong and Ouyang, Liwei and Wang, Fei-Yue}, 
title = {{Decentralized Autonomous Organizations: Concept, Model, and Applications}}, 
issn = {2329-924X}, 
doi = {10.1109/tcss.2019.2938190}, 
abstract = {{Decentralized autonomy is a long-standing research topic in information sciences and social sciences. The self-organization phenomenon in natural ecosystems, the Cyber Movement Organizations (CMOs) on the Internet, and the Distributed Artificial Intelligence (DAI), and so on, can all be regarded as its early manifestations. In recent years, the rapid development of blockchain technology has spawned the emergence of the so-called Decentralized Autonomous Organization [DAO, sometimes labeled as Decentralized Autonomous Corporation (DAC)], which is a new organization form that the management and operational rules are typically encoded on blockchain in the form of smart contracts, and can autonomously operate without centralized control or third-party intervention. DAO is expected to overturn the traditional hierarchical management model and significantly reduce organizations’ costs on communication, management, and collaboration. However, DAO still faces many challenges, such as security and privacy issue, unclear legal status, and so on. In this article, we strive to present a systematic introduction of DAO, including its concept and characteristics, research framework, typical implementations, challenges, and future trends. Especially, a novel reference model for DAO which employs a five-layer architecture is proposed. This article is aimed at providing helpful guidance and reference for future research efforts.}}, 
pages = {870--878}, 
number = {5}, 
volume = {6}, 
journal = {IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems}, 
keywords = {DAO}, 
local-url = {file://localhost/Users/bt_neurospin/Documents/Papers%20Library/Wang-Decentralized%20Autonomous%20Organizations-%20Concept,%20Model,%20and%20Applications-2019-IEEE%20Transactions%20on%20Computational%20Social%20Systems.pdf}, 
year = {2019}
}
@article{AZTEC, 
author = {Williamson, Zachary J.}, 
title = {{The AZTEC Protocol}}, 
journal = {Whitepaper}, 
keywords = {privacy,AZTEC protocol,Ethereum}, 
local-url = {file://localhost/Users/bt_neurospin/Documents/Papers%20Library/AZTEC.pdf}, 
year = {2018}, 
rating = {5}
}
@article{PLONK, 
author = {Gabizon, Ariel and Williamson, Zachary J. and Ciobotaru, Oana}, 
title = {{PLONK: Permutations over Lagrange-bases for Oecumenical Noninteractive arguments of Knowledge}}, 
abstract = {{zk-SNARK constructions that utilize an updatable universal structured referencestring  remove  one  of  the  main  obstacles  in  deploying  zk-SNARKs[GKM+].   Theimportant work of Maller et al. [MBKM19] presentedSonic- the first potentiallypractical zk-SNARK with fully succinct verification for general arithmetic circuitswith such an SRS. However, the version ofSonicenabling fully succinct verificationstill requires relatively high proof construction overheads.  We present a universalSNARK construction with fully succinct verification, and significantly lower proverrunning time (roughly 7.5-20 less group exponentiations than [MBKM19] in the fullysuccinct verifier mode depending on circuit structure).Similarly to [MBKM19] we rely on a permutation argument based on Bayer andGroth [BG12].  However, we focus on “Evaluations on a subgroup rather than co-efficients of monomials”; which enables simplifying both the permutation argumentand the arithmetization step.}}, 
journal = {Protocol Labs Research}, 
keywords = {privacy,AZTEC protocol}, 
local-url = {file://localhost/Users/bt_neurospin/Documents/Papers%20Library/Plonk.pdf}, 
year = {2019}, 
rating = {3}
}
@article{AntsReview, 
author = {Trovò, Bianca and Massari, Nazzareno}, 
title = {{Ants-Review: a Bounty-like system for Open Anonymous Scientific Peer-Reviews}}, 
doi = {10.5281/zenodo.3828087}, 
abstract = {{Peer-review is a necessary and essential quality control step for scientific publications. However, the process, which is very costly in terms of time investment, not only is not remunerated but it’s also not recognized by the academic community as a relevant scientific output for a researcher. Therefore, scientific dissemination is affected. Here, to solve this issue we propose a blockchain-based incentive protocol that rewards scientists also for their contributions to other scientists’ work and that builds up a reputational system. We designed a basic Bounty-like contract called AntsReview that allows any author to issue a call for peer-reviewing their scientific publication. If requirements are met, peer-reviews will be audited by an external editor and payed by the Issuer. To promote ethical behaviour the system will implement a quadratic funding on AntsReview.}}, 
journal = {Zenodo}, 
local-url = {file://localhost/Users/bt_neurospin/Documents/Papers%20Library/ETHTurin2020_team2_AntsReview-v0.pdf}, 
year = {2020}
}
@article{Tennant2017-F1000R, 
author = {Tennant, Jonathan P. and Dugan, Jonathan M. and Graziotin, Daniel and Jacques, Damien C. and Waldner, François and Mietchen, Daniel and Elkhatib, Yehia and Collister, Lauren B. and Pikas, Christina K. and Crick, Tom and Masuzzo, Paola and Caravaggi, Anthony and Berg, Devin R. and Niemeyer, Kyle E. and Ross-Hellauer, Tony and Mannheimer, Sara and Rigling, Lillian and Katz, Daniel S. and Tzovaras, Bastian Greshake and Pacheco-Mendoza, Josmel and Fatima, Nazeefa and Poblet, Marta and Isaakidis, Marios and Irawan, Dasapta Erwin and Renaut, Sébastien and Madan, Christopher R. and Matthias, Lisa and Kjær, Jesper Nørgaard and O'Donnell, Daniel Paul and Neylon, Cameron and Kearns, Sarah and Selvaraju, Manojkumar and Colomb, Julien}, 
title = {{A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review}}, 
doi = {10.12688/f1000research.12037.1}, 
abstract = {{Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of Web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform current models while avoiding as many of the biases of existing systems as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that, at least partially, resolves many of the technical and social issues associated with peer review, and can potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments.}}, 
pages = {1151}, 
volume = {6}, 
journal = {F1000Research}, 
local-url = {file://localhost/Users/bt_neurospin/Documents/Papers%20Library/Tennant-A%20multi-disciplinary%20perspective%20on%20emergent%20and%20future%20innovations%20in%20peer%20review-2017-F1000Research.pdf}, 
year = {2017}, 
rating = {5}
}
@article{ReviewBlockchain2019, 
author = {Leible, Stephan and Schlager, Steffen and Schubotz, Moritz and Gipp, Bela}, 
title = {{A Review on Blockchain Technology and Blockchain Projects Fostering Open Science}}, 
doi = {10.3389/fbloc.2019.00016}, 
abstract = {{Many sectors, like finance, medicine, manufacturing, and education, use blockchain applications to profit from the unique bundle of characteristics of this technology. Blockchain technology (BT) promises benefits in trustability, collaboration, organization, identification, credibility, and transparency. In this paper, we conduct an analysis in which we show how open science can benefit from this technology and its properties. For this, we determined the requirements of an open science ecosystem and compared them with the characteristics of BT to prove that the technology suits as an infrastructure. We also review literature and promising blockchain-based projects for open science to describe the current research situation. To this end, we examine the projects in particular for their relevance and contribution to open science and categorize them afterwards according to their primary purpose. Several of them already provide functionalities that can have a positive impact on current research workflows. So, BT offers promising possibilities for its use in science, but why is it then not used on a large-scale in that area? To answer this question, we point out various shortcomings, challenges, unanswered questions, and research potentials that we found in the literature and identified during our analysis. These topics shall serve as starting points for future research to foster the BT for open science and beyond, especially in the long-term.}}, 
pages = {16}, 
volume = {2}, 
journal = {Frontiers in Blockchain}, 
local-url = {file://localhost/Users/bt_neurospin/Documents/PAPERS/BLOCKCHAIN_for_SCIENCE-literature2020/fbloc-02-00016.pdf}, 
year = {2019}, 
rating = {5}
}
@article{vanRossum2017-DigSci, 
author = {Rossum, Dr. Joris van}, 
editor = {Science, Digital}, 
title = {{Blockchain for Research - Perspectives on a New Paradigm for Scholarly Communication}}, 
journaltitle = {Blockchain for Research Perspectives on a New Paradigm for Scholarly Communication}, 
doi = {10.6084/m9.figshare.5607778}, 
url = {www.digital-science.com}, 
series = {Digital Science}, 
journal = {Digital Science}, 
local-url = {file://localhost/Users/bt_neurospin/Documents/Papers%20Library/Rossum-Blockchain%20for%20Research%20-%20Perspectives%20on%20a%20New%20Paradigm%20for%20Scholarly%20Communication-2017-Digital%20Science.pdf}, 
year = {2017}, 
rating = {4}
}
@article{AES, 
author = {b8d5ad9d974a44e7e2882f986467f4d3}, 
title = {{Towards Open Science:  The Case for a Decentralized
Autonomous Academic Endorsement System}}, 
doi = {10.5281/zenodo.60054}, 
abstract = {{The current system of scholarly communica-tion is based on tradition, and does not corre-spond to the requirements of modern research.The dissemination of scienti c results ismostly done in the form of conventional arti-cles in scienti c journals, and has not evolvedwith research practice.In this paper, we propose a system of aca-demic endorsement based on blockchain tech-nology that is decoupled from the publicationprocess, which will allow expeditious appraisalof all kinds of scienti c output in a transparentmanner without relying on any central author-ity.}}, 
journal = {Zenodo}, 
local-url = {file://localhost/Users/bt_neurospin/Documents/PAPERS/BLOCKCHAIN_for_SCIENCE-literature2020/aes.pdf}, 
year = {2016}, 
rating = {5}
}
@article{BitcoinSatoshi, 
author = {Nakamoto, Satoshi}, 
title = {{Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System}}, 
url = {www.bitcoin.org}, 
abstract = {{purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending. We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network. The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. The network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on a best effort basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone.}}, 
journal = {Whitepaper}, 
keywords = {WHITEPAPER}, 
local-url = {file://localhost/Users/bt_neurospin/Documents/PAPERS/BLOCKCHAIN_for_SCIENCE-literature2020/bitcoin.pdf}, 
year = {2009}
}
@article{Smith2006, 
author = {Smith, Richard}, 
title = {{Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals}}, 
issn = {0141-0768}, 
doi = {10.1177/014107680609900414}, 
pages = {178--182}, 
number = {4}, 
volume = {99}, 
journal = {Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine}, 
local-url = {file://localhost/Users/bt_neurospin/Documents/PAPERS/BLOCKCHAIN_for_SCIENCE-literature2020/014107680609900414.pdf}, 
year = {2006}
}