DeSci: Decentralized Science Publishing and the Future of Research Evaluation
NASU, Web3 Institute
Max SemenchukKey Ideas:
- Science crisis dimensions:
- Replication crisis: Studies cannot be reproduced with same results
- Predatory publishing: 800 journals (2014) → 50,000+ (2021), Ukraine's network implicated in Europe's largest paper mill (1,500 articles)
- Peer review crisis: System overloaded, editors resigning, AI-generated reviews, 10,000 retractions in 2023 (new record)
- Publication flood: Scientists publishing 200+ papers/year, would eliminate Peter Higgs today
- Root causes:
- Objective metrics fallacy: Papers/citations/impact factors treat qualitatively heterogeneous outputs as homogeneous
- Citation inequality: Citations range from praise to criticism - cannot be counted equally
- Gaming mechanisms: Citation cartels, paper mills can manipulate all metrics
- Oligopoly control: Big 5 publishers (40% profit margins, 5x growth since 1995), scientists do all work unpaid
- Ukraine specifics:
- 3rd in papers per $1M R&D spending (after Iraq, Pakistan) - "astonishing effectiveness" hiding imitation
- 0.3% GDP on R&D (world's lowest) + highest publication requirements = quality impossible
- "Quality is binary - paper either solves problem or it doesn't"
- DeSci solutions (partial):
- Distributed ledger for immutable/tamperproof records
- Decentralized storage (IPFS, Arweave, Filecoin)
- Zero-knowledge proofs for sensitive data validation
- Token incentives for peer review, data curation, replication studies
- Quadratic funding, milestone-based smart contracts (limited to applied research)
- DeSci limitations:
- Doesn't solve reputation/trust systems
- External monetary rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation
- Problem isn't motivation but time/resources
- Tokenization commodifies what shouldn't be commodity
- Proposed improvements:
- Core principle: Make subjective evaluation public (partially in ResearchHub)
- Publish anything, but reviews must be visible
- Templates for all outputs (papers, data, code)
- Anonymous reviewers via ZK proofs (validates expertise without revealing identity)
- Tiered commentary: Color-coded by expertise level (close experts → field scientists → other scientists → public)
- Visible networks: Show author connections (co-authorship, supervision, citations) - "tell me who your friend is"
- Version control for iterative improvement
- Reddit-like discussion forums for papers
- Required systemic changes:
- Stop rewarding quantity
- Eliminate scientometrics in evaluation/rankings
- Enforce consequences for dishonesty (paper mills, plagiarism)
- Remove regulatory requirements for "approved journals"
- Return to core values: seeking truth, not paper counts
- Ukraine advantage: System at breaking point, community aware of problems, no entrenched commercial interests - opportunity for radical reform
As the global scientific community grapples with challenges of transparency, accessibility, and fair evaluation, traditional centralized publishing models are showing their limitations. Dmytro's work in DeSci tackles a fascinating challenge: how can we create open, transparent systems for scientific publishing and research evaluation using decentralized technologies?
This isn't just theoretical—it's addressing real problems that the scientific community faces today: publication paywalls, opaque peer review processes, the need for transparent research validation, and the complexity of fairly evaluating scientific contributions across diverse fields. The DeSci movement's vision for blockchain-powered research platforms could fundamentally change how scientific knowledge is shared, verified, and valued.
In the context of Ukraine's scientific innovation and the global push for open science, this work represents the kind of paradigm-shifting application that blockchain was made for—transparent, decentralized, and democratized access to knowledge at scale.
Join us to discover how blockchain could power not just financial systems, but the future of scientific discovery itself.