CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 16

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Funding Science with Science: Cryptocurrency and Independent Academic Research Funding

Lehner, Edward, Hunzeker, Dylan, Ziegler, John R.·2017·Ledger
DOI 10.5195/ledger.2017.108
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Scientific funding within the academy is an often complicated affair involving disparate and competing interests. Private universities, for instance, are vastly outpacing public institutions in garnering large, prestigious, science-related grants and external research investment. Inequities also extend to the types of research funded, with government, corporate, and even military interests privileging certain types of inquiry. This article proposes an innovative type of science research fund using cryptocurrencies, a fast-growing asset class. Although not a total funding solution, staking coins, specifically, can be strategically invested in to yield compound interest. These coins use masternode technologies to collateralize the network and speed transaction pace and may pay dividends to masternode holders, allowing institutions that purchase these types of central hubs to potentially engage in a lucrative form of dividend reinvestment. Using cryptocurrencies as a new funding stream may garner large amounts of capital and creation of nonprofit institutes to support the future of funding scientific research within educational institutions.

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 · 10.5195/ledger.2017.108

Cites

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Greer, R. J. "What is an Asset Class, Anyway?" The Journal of Portfolio Management 23.2 (1997) 86-91 http://www.iijournals.com/doi/abs/10.3905/jpm.23.2.86?journalCode=jpm · DOI
  2. Burniske, C., White, A. "Bitcoin: Ringing the Bell for a New Asset Class." Ark Invest (January 2017) https://research.ark-invest.com/hubfs/1_Download_Files_ARK-Invest/White_Papers/Bitcoin- Ringing-The-Bell-For-A-New-Asset-Class.pdf ISSN 2379-5980 (online) DOI 10.5915/LEDGER.2017.108 · DOI
  3. Izak, M. Kostera, M. Zawadzki (Ed.) The Future of University Education, New York: Palgrave (2017) 185- 206
  4. Mervis, J. "From the Outside Looking In." Science 329.5989 270-273 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1126/science.329.5989.270-a 10 · DOI
  5. Nestle, M. Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health. Berkeley: University of California Press 2 (2013)
  6. Sismondo, S. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons 10-11(2011)
  7. Lehner, E. "The Return of the Natural Philosopher." Cultural Studies of Science Education 5.1 71-78 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-009-9209-2 · DOI
  8. Ioannidis, J. P. "Defending Biomedical Science in an Era of Threatened Funding." JAMA 317.24 2483- 2484 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.5811 · DOI
  9. Haller, S. F., Gerrie, J. "The Role of Science in Public Policy: Higher Reason, or Reason for Hire?" Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20.2 139-165 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-006-9027-4 · DOI
  10. Greenwood, D. J., Levin, M. "Reform of the Social Sciences and of Universities Through Action Research." In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 43-64 (2005)
  11. Ali, M. M., Bhattacharyya, P., Olejniczak, A. J. "The Effects of Scholarly Productivity and Institutional Characteristics on the Distribution of Federal Research Grants." The Journal of Higher Education 81.2 164- 165, 175 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.0.0084 · DOI
  12. McKinley, D. C., et al. "Citizen Science Can Improve Conservation Science, Natural Resource Management, and Environmental Protection." Biological Conservation 208 15-28 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.015 · DOI
  13. Roth, W. M., Barton, A. C. Rethinking Scientific Literacy. Abingdon-on-Thames, U.K.: Psychology Press 2-3 (2004)
  14. Shore, C. "Beyond the Multiversity: Neoliberalism and the Rise of the Schizophrenic University." Social Anthropology 18.1 16-17 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8676.2009.00094.x ISSN 2379-5980 (online) DOI 10.5915/LEDGER.2017.108 · DOI
  15. Strathern, M. "The Tyranny of Transparency." British Educational Research Journal 26.3 309-321 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1080/713651562 · DOI
  16. Lincoln, Y. S., Guba, E. G. "Ethics: The Failure of Positivist Science." The Review of Higher Education 12.3 227-228 (1989) https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.1989.0017 · DOI
  17. Tobin, K. G. "Sociocultural Perspectives on Science Education." In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, C. J. McRobbie (Ed.) Second International Handbook of Science Education. New York: Springer 4-7 (2012)
  18. Christensen, C. M. The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Brighton: Harvard Business Review Press 3-35 (2013)
  19. Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. "Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research." In N. K. Denszin, Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 11-14 (2017)
  20. Kincheloe, J. L., McLaren, P., Steinberg, S. R., Monzó, L. D. "Critical Pedagogy and Qualitative Research: Advancing the Bricolage." In N. K. Denszin, Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (5th ed.) Thousand Oaks: Sage 235-260 (2017)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Lehner, E., Hunzeker, D., & Ziegler, J. R.
ORCID
Ziegler, John R.
Venue
Ledger
Publisher
University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
Published
2017-12-18
Volume
2
Pages
65-76
ISSN
2379-5980
DOI
10.5195/ledger.2017.108
Cited by
16
References
0
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (unspecified)

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