Decentralized science is a key component of our society’s collective-intelligence infrastructure). The current crypto period of inflated expectation and through of disillusionment (and primitive tooling) shouldn’t distract us from the mid-term potential for networks of people unleashing creativity. Thanks for the post!
Thanks for a thought-provoking commentary, Jocelynn! I am particularly intrigued by the potential of blockchain technology for scientific peer-review. The Ants Reviews project looks like its authors put in some thought, but I wonder whether it has much potential, given that it seems to create new obstacles for transparent and efficient scientific publishing. For example, expecting an author of a scientific article to issue a bounty (i.e., to pay?) for their article to be reviewed seems to create new problem, rather than a solution. At the moment, what makes PR work relatively well (irrespectively of all the issues it has) is precisely that the author's do not have to pay for PR. Many of them may not be able to afford to issue any bounty, as they are in a precarious position with a limited access to funds. Do you think this is really an improvement?
Decentralized science is a key component of our society’s collective-intelligence infrastructure). The current crypto period of inflated expectation and through of disillusionment (and primitive tooling) shouldn’t distract us from the mid-term potential for networks of people unleashing creativity. Thanks for the post!
Thanks for a thought-provoking commentary, Jocelynn! I am particularly intrigued by the potential of blockchain technology for scientific peer-review. The Ants Reviews project looks like its authors put in some thought, but I wonder whether it has much potential, given that it seems to create new obstacles for transparent and efficient scientific publishing. For example, expecting an author of a scientific article to issue a bounty (i.e., to pay?) for their article to be reviewed seems to create new problem, rather than a solution. At the moment, what makes PR work relatively well (irrespectively of all the issues it has) is precisely that the author's do not have to pay for PR. Many of them may not be able to afford to issue any bounty, as they are in a precarious position with a limited access to funds. Do you think this is really an improvement?