CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 134

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Review on Blockchain Technology and Blockchain Projects Fostering Open Science

Leible, Stephan, Schlager, Steffen, Schubotz, Moritz, Gipp, Bela·2019·Frontiers in Blockchain
DOI 10.3389/fbloc.2019.00016
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fbloc.2019.00016

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Open Science allows collaboration and contribution, with research data, lab memos, and processes freely available under terms allowing reuse, redistribution, and reproduction.

    “Research data, lab memos, and other research processes are at free disposition under terms that allow the reuse, redistribution, and reproduction of studies, along with their corresponding methodologies and data (Leible et al., 2019).”

    From Exploring the decentralized science ecosystem: insights on organizational structures, technologies, and funding (2025) · cites this paper as Leible et al., 2019

  • Early approaches using blockchain technology for implementing open science principles and advocating for transparency, collaboration, and accessibility in scientific research have emerged.

    “In recent years, amid the ever-changing blockchain technology landscape, early approaches using blockchain technology for implementing open science principles and advocating for transparency, collaboration, and accessibility in scientific research have emerged (Hamburg, 2021;Leible et al., 2019).”

    From Exploring the decentralized science ecosystem: insights on organizational structures, technologies, and funding (2025) · cites this paper as Leible et al., 2019

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 138

  1. Abeyratne, 2016, Blockchain ready manufacturing supply chain using distributed ledger, Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol., 5, 1, 10.15623/ijret.2016.0509001 · DOI
  2. Altunay, 2011, A science driven production cyberinfrastructure–the open science grid, J. Grid Comput., 9, 201, 10.1007/s10723-010-9176-6 · DOI
  3. Androulaki, 2018, Hyperledger fabric: a distributed operating system for permissioned blockchains,, 1, 10.1145/3190508.3190538 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 2016, Towards Open Science: The Case for a Decentralized Autonomous Academic Endorsement System
  5. Arazy, 2006, Wisdom of the crowds: decentralized knowledge construction in wikipedia,, 10.2139/ssrn.1025624 · DOI
  6. Arnold, 2019, Blockchain and initial coin offerings: blockchain's implications for crowdfunding,, 233, 10.1007/978-3-319-98911-2_8 · DOI
  7. Aste, 2017, Blockchain technologies: the foreseeable impact on society and industry, Computer, 50, 18, 10.1109/MC.2017.3571064 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Avital, 2018, Peer review: toward a blockchain-enabled market-based ecosystem, Commun. Assoc. Inform. Syst., 42, 646, 10.17705/1CAIS.04228 · DOI
  9. BartlingS. Living Document - Blockchain for Science and Knowledge Creation. Berlin: BFS Blockchain for Science GmbH2018 · DOI
  10. Bartling, 2014, Towards another scientific revolution,, 3, 10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_1 · DOI
  11. Bayer, 1993, Improving the efficiency and reliability of digital time-stamping,, 329, 10.1007/978-1-4613-9323-8_24 · DOI
  12. Blockchain - the gateway to trust-free cryptographic transactions, BeckR. CzepluchJ. S. LollikeN. MaloneS. IstanbulProceedings of the Twenty-Fourth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS)2016
  13. Bell, 2017, Advancing open science with version control and blockchains,, 13, 10.1109/SE4Science.2017.11 · DOI
  14. Benchoufi, 2017, Blockchain technology for improving clinical research quality, Trials, 18, 335, 10.1186/s13063-017-2035-z · DOI
  15. Benčić, 2018, Distributed ledger technology: blockchain compared to directed acyclic graph,, 1569, 10.1109/ICDCS.2018.00171 · DOI
  16. Ben-Sasson, 2014, Zerocash: decentralized anonymous payments from bitcoin,, 459, 10.1109/SP.2014.36 · DOI
  17. Blockchain for Peer Review - For a transparent, recognizable, and trustworthy peer-review process2019
  18. Bhargavan, 2016, Formal verification of smart contracts,, 91, 10.1145/2993600.2993611 · DOI
  19. Bigi, 2015, Validation of decentralised smart contracts through game theory and formal methods,, 142
  20. Boulton, 2011, Science as a public enterprise: the case for open data, Lancet, 377, 1633, 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60647-8 · DOI
  21. Breitinger, 2017, VirtualPatent: enabling the traceability of ideas shared online using decentralized trusted timestamping,, 89
  22. Campbell, 2002, Data withholding in academic genetics - evidence from a national survey, JAMA, 287, 473, 10.1001/jama.287.4.473 · DOI
  23. Carroll, 2011, Why full open access matters, PLoS Biol., 9, e1001210, 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001210 · DOI
  24. Casati, 2011, Micro-credits in scientific publishing, J. Document., 67, 958, 10.1108/00220411111183546 · DOI
  25. Casino, 2018, A systematic literature review of blockchain-based applications: current status, classification and open issues, Telemat. Informat., 36, 55, 10.1016/j.tele.2018.11.006 · DOI
  26. Catalini, 2016, Some Simple Economics of the Blockchain, 10.3386/w22952 · DOI
  27. Catlin-Groves, 2012, The citizen science landscape: from volunteers to citizen sensors and beyond, Int. J. Zool., 2012, 349630, 10.1155/2012/349630 · DOI
  28. Chen, 2018, Blockchain based provenance sharing of scientific workflows,, 3814, 10.1109/BigData.2018.8622237 · DOI
  29. Chohan, 2018, The Double Spending Problem and Cryptocurrencies
  30. Cribb, 2010, Open Science: Sharing Knowledge in the Global Century, 1st Edn, 10.1071/9780643097643 · DOI
  31. Cruz, 2018, RBAC-SC: role-based access control using smart contract, IEEE Access, 6, 12240, 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2812844 · DOI
  32. TrialChain: a blockchain-based platform to validate data integrity in large, biomedical research studies DaiH. YoungH. P. DurantT. J. S. GongG. KangM. KrumholzH. M. Comput. Res. Repository. arxiv: 1807.036622018
  33. Dannen, 2017, Introducing Ethereum and Solidity: Foundations of Cryptocurrency and Blockchain Programming for Beginners, 1st Edn, 10.1007/978-1-4842-2535-6 · DOI
  34. Dansinger, 2017, Dear plagiarist: a letter to a peer reviewer who stole and published our manuscript as his own, Ann. Intern. Med., 166, 143, 10.7326/M16-2551 · DOI
  35. Davidson, 2016, Disrupting Governance: The New Institutional Economics of Distributed Ledger Technology
  36. A survey of blockchain technologies for open innovation, de La RosaJ. L. Torres-PadrosaV. El-FakdiA. GibovicD. HornyákO. MaicherL. San Francisco, CAWorld Open Innovation Conference 20172017
  37. De Roure, 2008, myExperiment: defining the social virtual research environment,, 182, 10.1109/eScience.2008.86 · DOI
  38. DegenR. Peer Reviewer Steals Text for His Own Chemistry Paper, Gets Sanctioned by Journal. Retraction Watch2016
  39. Dell'Erba, 2018, Demystifying Technology. Do Smart Contracts Require a New Legal Framework? Regulatory Fragmentation, Self-Regulation, Public Regulation, 10.2139/ssrn.3228445 · DOI
  40. DeshpandeA. StewartK. LepetitL. GunashekarS. Distributed Ledger Technologies/Blockchain: Challenges, Opportunities and the Prospects for Standards. Technical report, The British Standards Institution (BSI)2017 · DOI
  41. DhillonV. Blockchain-Enabled Open Science Framework. O'Reilly Media2016
  42. Dhillon, 2017, Blockchain in science,, 111, 10.1007/978-1-4842-3081-7_8 · DOI
  43. Extance, 2017, Could Bitcoin technology help science?, Nature, 552, 301, 10.1038/d41586-017-08589-4 · DOI
  44. Fanning, 2016, Blockchain and its coming impact on financial services, J. Corpor. Account. Finan., 27, 53, 10.1002/jcaf.22179 · DOI
  45. Fecher, 2014, Open science: one term, five schools of thought,, 17, 10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_2 · DOI
  46. Towards a scientific blockchain framework for reproducible data analysis FurlanelloC. De DomenicoM. JurmanG. BussolaN. Comput. Res. Reposit. arxiv: 1707.065522017
  47. Gervais, 2016, On the security and performance of proof of work blockchains,, 3, 10.1145/2976749.2978341 · DOI
  48. Gipp, 2017, CryptSubmit: introducing securely timestamped manuscript submission and peer review feedback using the blockchain,, 10.1109/JCDL.2017.7991588 · DOI
  49. Securing video integrity using decentralized trusted timestamping on the bitcoin blockchain, GippB. KostiJ. BreitingerC. PaphosProceedings of the 10th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (MCIS)2016
  50. Gipp, 2015, Decentralized trusted timestamping using the crypto currency bitcoin,
  51. Gray, 2009, A transformed scientific method,, XVII
  52. Gura, 2013, Citizen science: amateur experts, Nature, 496, 259, 10.1038/nj7444-259a · DOI
  53. Gürkaynak, 2018, Intellectual property law and practice in the blockchain realm, Comput. Law Secur. Rev., 34, 847, 10.1016/j.clsr.2018.05.027 · DOI
  54. Haber, 1991, How to time-stamp a digital document, J. Cryptol., 3, 99, 10.1007/BF00196791 · DOI · Paper page
  55. Haeussler, 2011, Information-sharing in academia and the industry: A comparative study, Res. Policy, 40, 105, 10.1016/j.respol.2010.08.007 · DOI
  56. Hand, 2010, Citizen science: people power, Nature, 466, 685, 10.1038/466685a · DOI
  57. Hartgerink, 2019, Verified, shared, modular, and provenance based research communication with the dat protocol, Publications, 7, 1, 10.3390/publications7020040 · DOI
  58. Hepp, 2018, Securing physical assets on the blockchain: linking a novel object identification concept with distributed ledgers,, 60, 10.1145/3211933.3211944 · DOI
  59. Hoffmann, 2018, Smart papers: dynamic publications on the blockchain,, 304
  60. Hunter, 2008, Collaborative research in sociology: trends and contributing factors, Am. Sociol., 39, 290, 10.1007/s12108-008-9042-1 · DOI
  61. Ihle, 2018, Smart contract-based role management on the blockchain,, 335
  62. Irwin, 2006, The politics of talk: coming to terms with the 'new' scientific governance, Soc. Stud. Sci., 36, 299, 10.1177/0306312706053350 · DOI
  63. Peer-reviews on the blockchain,15 JanZ. ThirdA. BachlerM. DomingueJ. Cologne1st Workshop on Reframing Research (RefResh 2018)2018
  64. Janowicz, 2018, On the prospects of blockchain and distributed ledger technologies for open science and academic publishing,, Semantic Web, 9, 545, 10.3233/SW-180322 · DOI
  65. Kakavand, 2017, The Blockchain Revolution: An Analysis of Regulation and Technology Related to Distributed Ledger Technologies
  66. Kiyomoto, 2017, On blockchain-based anonymized dataset distribution platform,, 85, 10.1109/SERA.2017.7965711 · DOI
  67. Kochalko, 2018, Applying blockchain solutions to address research reproducibility and enable scientometric analysis,, 395
  68. Kosba, 2016, Hawk: the blockchain model of cryptography and privacy-preserving smart contracts,, 839, 10.1109/SP.2016.55 · DOI · Paper page
  69. Lemieux, 2016, Blockchain for Recordkeeping; Help or Hype?
  70. Li, 2018, Initial Coin Offerings and Platform Building, 10.2139/ssrn.3088726 · DOI
  71. Liang, 2017, ProvChain: a blockchain-based data provenance architecture in cloud environment with enhanced privacy and availability,, 468, 10.1109/CCGRID.2017.8 · DOI
  72. Lin, 2017, A survey of blockchain security issues and challenges, Int. J. Netw. Secur., 19, 653, 10.6633/IJNS.201709.19(5).01 · DOI
  73. Luu, 2016, Making smart contracts smarter,, 254, 10.1145/2976749.2978309 · DOI
  74. Macleod, 2014, Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste, Lancet, 383, 101, 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62329-6 · DOI · Paper page
  75. Matosin, 2014, Negativity towards negative results: a discussion of the disconnect between scientific worth and scientific culture, Dis. Models Mech., 7, 171, 10.1242/dmm.015123 · DOI
  76. McKiernan, 2019, Meta-research: use of the journal impact factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations, eLife, 8, e47338, 10.7554/eLife.47338 · DOI
  77. Mlinarić, 2017, Dealing with the positive publication bias: why you should really publish your negative results, Biochem. Med., 27, 030201, 10.11613/BM.2017.030201 · DOI
  78. Molloy, 2011, The open knowledge foundation: open data means better science, PLoS Biol., 9, e1001195, 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001195 · DOI
  79. Morini, 2016, From ‘Blockchain Hype' to a real business case for financial markets, Soc. Sci. Res. Netw. Electr. J, 45, 30, 10.2139/ssrn.2760184 · DOI
  80. Mounier, 2018, OPERAS Whitepaper - Open Access in the European Research Area Through Scholarly Communication
  81. Murray-Rust, 2008, Open data in science, Ser. Rev., 34, 52, 10.1016/j.serrev.2008.01.001 · DOI
  82. Myllylahti, 2014, Newspaper paywalls–the hype and the reality, Digit. Journal., 2, 179, 10.1080/21670811.2013.813214 · DOI
  83. Nentwich, 2003, Cyberscience: Research in the Age of the Internet, 1st Edn
  84. Nguyen, 2018, A survey about consensus algorithms used in blockchain, J. Informat. Process. Syst., 14, 101, 10.3745/JIPS.01.0024 · DOI
  85. Nguyen, 2016, Blockchain - a financial technology for future sustainable development,, 51, 10.1109/GTSD.2016.22 · DOI
  86. Nosek, 2012, Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability, Perspect. Psychol. Sci., 7, 615, 10.1177/1745691612459058 · DOI
  87. Notheisen, 2017, Breaking down the blockchain hype - towards a blockchain market engineering approach,, 1062
  88. Nugent, 2016, Improving data transparency in clinical trials using blockchain smart contracts, F1000Research, 5, 2541, 10.12688/f1000research.9756.1 · DOI · Paper page
  89. O'Dwyer, 2014, Bitcoin mining and its energy footprint,, 280
  90. OgdenM. McKelveyK. MadsenM. B. Dat - Distributed Dataset Synchronization And Versioning2018 · DOI
  91. Opoku-AgyemangK. A. Using Blockchain for Scientific Transparency2017 · DOI
  92. Ozercan, 2018, Realizing the potential of blockchain technologies in genomics, Genome Res., 28, 1255, 10.1101/gr.207464.116 · DOI · Paper page
  93. Pampel, 2014, Open research data: from vision to practice,, 213, 10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_14 · DOI
  94. Peters, 2016, Understanding modern banking ledgers through blockchain technologies: future of transaction processing and smart contracts on the internet of money,, 239, 10.1007/978-3-319-42448-4_13 · DOI · Paper page
  95. Peterson, 2018, Augur: a decentralized oracle and prediction market platform, 10.13140/2.1.1431.4563 · DOI
  96. Phelps, 2012, Supporting the advancement of science: open access publishing and the role of mandates, J. Transl. Med., 13, 1, 10.1186/1479-5876-10-13 · DOI
  97. Ponsford, 2015, A comparative analysis of bitcoin and other decentralised virtual currencies: legal regulation in the People's Republic of China, Canada, and the United States, Hong Kong J. Legal Stud, 9, 29, 10.2139/ssrn.2554186 · DOI
  98. Pordes, 2007, The open science grid,, Journal of Physics Conference Series, 78, 10.1088/1742-6596/78/1/012057 · DOI
  99. Pouwelse, 2005, The bittorrent P2P file-sharing system: measurements and analysis,, 205
  100. Powell, 2009, Participatory paradoxes: facilitating citizen engagement in science and technology from the top-down?, Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc., 29, 325, 10.1177/0270467609336308 · DOI
  101. Priem, 2012, Altmetrics in the wild: using social media to explore scholarly impact,
  102. Puthal, 2018, The blockchain as a decentralized security framework, IEEE Consum. Electr. Mag., 7, 18, 10.1109/MCE.2017.2776459 · DOI · Paper page
  103. Rachovitsa, 2018, Blockchain for open science and sustainable development goals,, 2
  104. Rivière, 2018, Blockchain technology and IP – investigating benefits and acceptance in governments and legislations, Jun. Manag. Sci., 3, 1, 10.5282/jums/v3i1pp1-15 · DOI
  105. Salyers, 2002, Science, censorship, and public health, Science, 296, 617, 10.1126/science.296.5568.617 · DOI
  106. Savelyev, 2017, Contract law 2.0: ‘Smart' contracts as the beginning of the end of classic contract law, Informat. Commun. Technol. Law, 26, 116, 10.1080/13600834.2017.1301036 · DOI
  107. Schiltz, 2018, Science without publication paywalls: cOAlition S for the realisation of full and immediate open access, PLoS Med., 15, e1002663, 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002663 · DOI
  108. Schönhals, 2018, Design thinking using the blockchain: enable traceability of intellectual property in problem-solving processes for open innovation,, 105, 10.1145/3211933.3211952 · DOI
  109. Schönhals, 2019, Overview of licensing platforms based on distributed ledger technology,, 4675, 10.24251/HICSS.2019.564 · DOI
  110. Schooler, 2014, Metascience could rescue the 'replication crisis', Nature, 515, 9, 10.1038/515009a · DOI
  111. Sitek, 2014, Open access: a state of the art,, 139, 10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_9 · DOI
  112. Smith, 2006, Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals, J. R. Soc. Med., 99, 178, 10.1177/014107680609900414 · DOI · Paper page
  113. Spearpoint, 2017, A proposed currency system for academic peer review payments using the blockChain technology, MDPI, 5, 19, 10.3390/publications5030019 · DOI
  114. Swan, Blockchain: Blueprint for a New Economy, 1st Edn.
  115. Swan, Blockchain thinking: the brain as a decentralized autonomous corporation, IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag., 34, 41, 10.1109/MTS.2015.2494358 · DOI
  116. Tacke, 2010, Open science 2.0: how research and education can benefit from open innovation and web 2.0,, 37, 10.1007/978-3-642-14481-3_4 · DOI
  117. Tennant, 2018, The state of the art in peer review, FEMS Microbiol. Lett., 365, 1, 10.1093/femsle/fny204 · DOI
  118. Tennant, 2019, Foundations for open scholarship strategy development, MetaArXiv [Preprint], 10.31222/osf.io/b4v8p · DOI
  119. Tennant, 2017, A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review, F1000Research, 6, 1151, 10.12688/f1000research.12037.3 · DOI
  120. Tenorio-Fornés, 2019, Towards a decentralized process for scientific publication and peer review using blockchain and IPFS,, 4635, 10.24251/HICSS.2019.560 · DOI
  121. Teplitskiy, 2017, Amplifying the impact of open access: wikipedia and the diffusion of science, J. Assoc. Inform. Sci. Technol., 68, 2116, 10.1002/asi.23687 · DOI
  122. Tian, 2016, An agri-food supply chain traceability system for China based on RFID & blockchain technology,, 10.1109/ICSSSM.2016.7538424 · DOI
  123. Treiblmaier, 2019, Toward more rigorous blockchain research: recommendations for writing blockchain case studies, Front. Blockchain, 2, 1, 10.3389/fbloc.2019.00003 · DOI
  124. Tschorsch, 2016, Bitcoin and beyond: a technical survey on decentralized digital currencies, IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor., 18, 2084, 10.1109/COMST.2016.2535718 · DOI · Paper page
  125. Van Assen, 2014, Why publishing everything is more effective than selective publishing of statistically significant results, PLoS ONE, 9, e84896, 10.1371/journal.pone.0084896 · DOI
  126. Van Noorden, 2010, Metrics: a profusion of measures, Nature, 465, 864, 10.1038/465864a · DOI
  127. van Rossum, 2017, Blockchain for Research - Perspectives on a New Paradigm for Scholarly Communication
  128. van Rossum, 2018, The blockchain and its potential for science and academic publishing, Informat. Serv. Use, 38, 95, 10.3233/ISU-180003 · DOI
  129. Viriyasitavat, 2019, Blockchain characteristics and consensus in modern business processes, J. Indust. Inform. Integr., 13, 32, 10.1016/j.jii.2018.07.004 · DOI
  130. KARMA: a secure economic framework for peer-to-peer resource sharing, VishnumurthyV. ChandrakumarS. SirerE. G. Berkeley, CA1st Workshop on Economics of Peer-to-Peer Systems2003
  131. Vision, 2010, Open data and the social contract of scientific publishing, BioScience, 60, 330, 10.1525/bio.2010.60.5.2 · DOI
  132. Twitter for scientific communication: how can citations/references be identified and measured?,14 WellerK. PuschmannC. KoblenzACM3rd ACM International Conference on Web Science (WebSci '11)2011
  133. Woolston, 2015, Recognition: build a reputation, Nature, 521, 113, 10.1038/nj7550-113a · DOI
  134. Securing the integrity of time series data in open science projects using blockchain-based trusted timestamping,13 WortnerP. SchubotzM. BreitingerC. LeibleS. GippB. Urbana-Champaign, ILProceedings of the Workshop on Web Archiving and Digital Libraries (WADL '19)2019
  135. Xu, 2016, The blockchain as a software connector,, 182, 10.1109/WICSA.2016.21 · DOI
  136. Zain, 2007, Reversible region of non-interest (RONI) watermarking for authentication of DICOM images, Int. J. Comput. Sci. Net. Sec., 7, 19
  137. Zheng, 2017, An overview of blockchain technology: architecture, consensus, and future trends,, 557, 10.1109/BigDataCongress.2017.85 · DOI · Paper page
  138. Zyskind, 2015, Decentralizing privacy: using blockchain to protect personal data,, 180, 10.1109/SPW.2015.27 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Leible, S., Schlager, S., Schubotz, M., & Gipp, B.
Venue
Frontiers in Blockchain
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2019-11-19
Volume
2
ISSN
2624-7852
DOI
10.3389/fbloc.2019.00016
Cited by
134
References
17
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review