While discussing interoperable metadata and interchangeable standards in STM is GOOD, blockchain is inappropriate for our industry because it is too complex, requires lack of trust to be valuable and does not offer as much potential ROI as other initiatives.
We need: Previous Hash Metadata Distributed writers Lots of copies 1 2 A network with no trusted intermediary, and shared copies of the database 4 3 Proof of work scheme to prevent 51% hack Incentive to participate ⏳ • Also lots of potential value if there are interactions between transactions
In STM we don’t have these things: 1 2 4 3 Distributed writers Lots of copies A network with no trusted intermediary, and shared copies of the database Proof of work scheme to prevent 51% hack Incentive to participate Hard to get to scale across all publishers We have a high trust environment, lots of trusted intermediaries Anonymity is eventually pointless in STM -> low incentives for attack Existing incentive schemes too entrenched to be supplanted
Finally - idea is simple, but implementation is hard - case study - Bitcoin 95% of transactions on the bitcoin network may be artificial Not secure Not egalitarian Not efficiently distributed Over 80% of mining is preformed by six mining pools $2.7M stolen from exchanges per day in 2018
Risks It will get attacked and hacked Vendor lock in Lack of technical capacity or attention within our organisations Who owns the transaction? Who owns a peer review? Reward systems in academic publishing are hard to shift
Opportunities Let’s us all talk about metadata Submissions as transactional events A global append only store Multiple copies, by design Transactional history of articles is interesting
ianmulvany
cutcarbon
____rina____
hiroshinakagawa
hiroki11x
usaito
icttitech
kitachan_black
joisino
chokkan
moba
lancers_pr
eileencodes
jnunemaker
cherdarchuk
lemiorhan
colly
bermonpainter
bkeepers
trishagee
searls
cromwellryan
orderedlist
thekraken