CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Can decentralized science help tackle the deterioration in working conditions in academia?

Sicard, François·2022·Frontiers in Blockchain
DOI 10.3389/fbloc.2022.1066294
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Academic staff’s working conditions have been deteriorating for years. In particular, the reduced availability of both research funding and permanent research positions has continuously led to insidious competition and intense stress among academics. Whereas governing bodies have made significant attempts to narrow pervasive social inequalities in the distribution of research funding within the scientific community, they have not truly taken into account the importance of the academics’ overall well-being in the development of more sustainable financing of academic researchers. This originates not only from the complexity to develop comprehensive models reflecting staff’s overall well-being in the academic environment, but also from the limited access to reliable and immutable data that transparently account for the staff’s direct experience. In this context, blockchain technology can push further the use of more transparent survey data collection and record-keeping that can help mitigate the systematic bias inherent to the centralized nature of traditional auditing. We discuss how research institutions and governing bodies can build on blockchain technology and the early momentum generated by the decentralized science (DeSci) movement to implement the future-proof research funding chain that values overall well-being across academia in a transparent and coordinated way.

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.2022.1066294

Cites

1 of 1 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?

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

  • Toward an ontology‐driven blockchain design for supply‐chain provenance

    Kim, H. M., & Laskowski, M. (2018) · Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management · doi:10.1002/isaf.1424 · Cited by 652 · cited 1×

    “Potential use cases for blockchain have now spread far beyond the sole cryptocurrency domain initiated by bitcoin in 2008 (Nakamoto, 2008), including manufacturing supply chain management (Kim and Laskowski, 2018), digital identity (Zwitter et al.”
    Background

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. Adamo, 2013, Attrition of women in the biological sciences: Workload, motherhood, and other explanations revisited, BioScience, 63, 43., 10.1525/bio.2013.63.1.9 · DOI
  2. Amabile, 1996, Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity
  3. Casino, 2019, A systematic literature review of blockchain- based applications: Current status, classification and open issues, Telemat. Inf., 36, 55, 10.1016/j.tele.2018.11.006 · DOI
  4. Charles, 2019, Blockchain compliance by design: Regulatory considerations for blockchain in clinical research, Front. Blockchain, 2, 18, 10.3389/fbloc.2019.00018 · DOI
  5. Coelho, 2019, Decentralising scientific publishing: Can the blockchain improve science communication?, Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz, 114, e190257, 10.1590/0074-02760190257 · DOI
  6. Fathima, 2020, Challenges and coping strategies faced by female scientists—A multicentric cross sectional study, PLoS ONE, 15, e0238635, 10.1371/journal.pone.0238635 · DOI
  7. Finck, 2018, Blockchains and data protection in the European Union, Eur. Data Prot. Law Rev., 4, 17, 10.21552/edpl/2018/1/6 · DOI
  8. Finck, 2020, They who must not be identified—Distinguishing personal from non-personal data under the gdpr, Int. Data Priv. Law, 10, 11, 10.1093/idpl/ipz026 · DOI
  9. Gewin, 2022, Has the great resignation hit academia?, Nature, 606, 211, 10.1038/d41586-022-01512-6 · DOI
  10. Hamburg, 2021, Call to join the decentralized science movement, Nature, 600, 221, 10.1038/d41586-021-03642-9 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Holligan, 2011, Measuring academic research performance through audit at the expense of trust: Exploring the 21st Century University, Bord. Crossing, 1, 49, 10.33182/bc.v1i1.521 · DOI
  12. Jarvis, 2022, Cypherpunk ideology: Objectives, profiles, and influences (1992–1998), Internet Hist., 6, 315, 10.1080/24701475.2021.1935547 · DOI
  13. Lauer, 2021, Inequalities in the distribution of national institutes of health research project grant funding, eLife, 10, e71712, 10.7554/elife.71712 · DOI
  14. Lauer, 2017, The next generation researchers initiative at nih, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 114, 11801, 10.1073/pnas.1716941114 · DOI
  15. Morrow, 2019, Blockchain and the tokenization of the individual: Societal implications, Future Internet, 11, 220, 10.3390/fi11100220 · DOI
  16. Newsome, 2008, The Chemistry PhD: The impact on women’s retention
  17. Pichon, 2021, Funding a more equitable research community, Nat. Chem., 13, 387, 10.1038/s41557-021-00703-4 · DOI
  18. Poblet, 2020, From athens to the blockchain: Oracles for digital democracy, Front. Blockchain, 3, 575662, 10.3389/fbloc.2020.575662 · DOI
  19. 2018, Diversity landscape of the chemical sciences: A report by the
  20. Ruggeri, 2020, Well-being is more than happiness and life satisfaction: A multidimensional analysis of 21 countries, Health Qual. Life Outcomes, 18, 192, 10.1186/s12955-020-01423-y · DOI · Paper page
  21. Treleaven, 2017, Blockchain technology in finance, Computer, 50, 14, 10.1109/mc.2017.3571047 · DOI
  22. Vigliotti, 2021, What do we mean by smart contracts? Open challenges in smart contracts, Front. Blockchain, 3, 553671, 10.3389/fbloc.2020.553671 · DOI
  23. Wang, 2019, A summary of research on blockchain in the field of intellectual property, Procedia Comput. Sci., 147, 191, 10.1016/j.procs.2019.01.220 · DOI
  24. Weziak-Bialowolska, 2021, Psychometric properties of flourishing scales from a comprehensive well-being assessment, Front. Psychol., 12, 652209, 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.652209 · DOI
  25. Woelfle, 2011, Open science is a research accelerator, Nat. Chem., 3, 745, 10.1038/nchem.1149 · DOI
  26. Zheng, 2017, An overview of blockchain technology: Architecture, consensus, and future trends, IEEE Int. Congr. Big Data (BigData Congress), 557, 10.1109/BigDataCongress.2017.85 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Zwitter, 2020, Digital identity and the blockchain: Universal identity management and the concept of the ”self-sovereign” individual, Front. Blockchain, 3, 26, 10.3389/fbloc.2020.00026 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Sicard, F.
Venue
Frontiers in Blockchain
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2022-11-11
Volume
5
ISSN
2624-7852
DOI
10.3389/fbloc.2022.1066294
Cited by
6
References
1
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