Anonymous Paper-Review System Reporter: ��� Group: ��� ��� ���
Peer review of scholarly papers is seen to be a critical step in the publication of high quality outputs in reputable journals. Defects with the mechanism: Bribe, acquaintance in journals, negtive academic rival, etc. They all can affect the justice of the paper contribution. We aimed at achieving an anonymous paper-review system base on the blockchain mechanism.
My Work
Achieving the rudimentary frame of the system by code, which comprises the part of follows: I. Part of contributor and its relevant functions II. Part of reviewers and its relevant functions III. Creation of block-chain IV. Recording of the currency V. The incentive mechanism
Contribute : ü In this class, its main function is contributing, and the ceiling of the number of the paper one contributor contributes one time can be set with a threshold. What’s more, for each paper, the contributor should pay a sum of money
Questions : ü Whether the paper pass the review? ü The maximum of the paper a contributor should review at one time in case of the malicious brush? ü The distribution of the fortune saved in the block?
Methods: 1. We can use a flag to mark if a paper passed. 2. A perfect solution is set the ceiling and use the Producer- Consumer model to achieve the real time application, and I simplified the model and just use a threshold. 3. since the sole way to increase the currency in the system is the creation of contributor, in which process the system will give a ration of money to the new user. So in order to achieve the self-supply function, we should guarantee the system will get a quota of money in the block during the distribution.
Core Idea : ü The is the final crucial part, which used to exert the influence of incentive layer. ü Specifically, in the light of the status of paper reviewed by the reviewers, if the the paper passed, the corresponding contributor will get the remuneration from the SDP(System Deposit Pool); nonetheless, the corresponding contributor will get nothing is the paper failed in reviewing.
Core Idea : ü How to assure the stability and credence of this system? ü How to prompt the currency flow of this system? Envisioned methods: 1. Qualification verification 2. Incentive mechanism
Since this is a system about academia, not everyone have Ø the qualification to contribute a paper or review a paper, therefore, some prerequisites need to be introduced into it. Each registered user must be identified by the system, to ü make sure they indeed have the caliber to use this system. (Identification can be linked with their identity card, their school, etc) For each user, they must have contributed at least once ü time in case of the abuse of account number of the people who doesn't want to contribute a paper but in the same lab with collegues who want to contribute.
Incentive mechanism can be assorted into 3 stratums: Ø contribution(I) review(II) citation(III) Contributor must cost some currency to contribute. And ü there are two designed methods: � A considerable cost, but can get the whole profits through the subsequent citation � Less cost but the institution will tax on a fixed proportion of the profits through the citation.
Reviewer can make money by reviewing the papers ü allocated by system. However, there also need some restricts: � Reviewer can only make money by its own distributed paper but not by helping another reviewer. � The number of paper distributed to reviewer must have a ceiling which means each reviewer can only review at most a fixed number of paper in case of the malicious brush.
Citation can be a profitable way for contributor. Each ü citation in a paper can bring some profit to contributor and, if possible, the institution. � But the relationship between the number of citation and the amount of profits can not be linear, otherwise, there will be a unbalanced competition between the prestigious professors and the inexperenced young. � For each citation, contributor need to pay a speck of extra fees to assrue the source of profits of citation mechanism.
Distribution Citation Reviewer & Feedback Incentive Finacial Incentive Correlation System Finacial Finacial Incentive Correlation Correlation Contributor
I. The work designed can maintain the rudimentary frame and satisfy the fundamental requirement of the incentive layer of the system. II. The concrete implement is achieved and the running result is consistent with the anticipated result, which means it exerts influence in the anonymous paper-review system successfully.
Recommend
More recommend
