Advertisement

MaRSChain: Framework for a Fair Manuscript Review System Based on Permissioned Blockchain

  • Nitesh EmmadiEmail author
  • Lakshmi Padmaja Maddali
  • Sumanta Sarkar
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11339)

Abstract

Current Manuscript Review Systems (Conference/Journal) rely on a centralized services (like EasyChair, iChair, HotCRP or EDAS), which manage the whole process that starts with manuscript submissions to notification of the results. As these review systems are centralized, the trust is based on a single entity. The fairness of the system hinges on the honesty of the central controlling authority. This dependency can be avoided by decentralizing the source of the trust. Bitcoin has shown the power of decentralization and shared database through blockchain technology, and currently is being studied for its immense impact on FinTech. We leverage blockchain to address the above concern and present a decentralized manuscript review system that provides trust and fairness. We call this system MaRSChain. As a proof of concept, we develop a prototype of MaRSChain system on top of Hyperledger Fabric platform. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first ever decentralized manuscript review system based on Blockchain.

Keywords

Manuscript review system Blockchain Consensus Fairness Trust Smart contract 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Vigneswaran R for his inputs towards the development of our system.

References

  1. 1.
    Deep Shift- Technology Tipping Points and Societal Impact. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GAC15_Technological_Tipping_Points_report_2015.pdf
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Aïmeur, E., Brassard, G., Gambs, S., Schönfeld, D.: P3ers: privacy-preserving peer review system. Trans. Data Privacy, pp. 553–578 (2012). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2423656.2423659
  13. 13.
    Arapinis, M., Bursuc, S., Ryan, M.: Privacy supporting cloud computing: confichair, a case study. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Principles of Security and Trust. pp. 89–108 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28641-4_6Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gipp, B., Breitinger, C., Meuschke, N., Beel, J.: Cryptsubmit: introducing securely timestamped manuscript submission and peer review feedback using the blockchain. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. pp. 273–276 (2017). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3200334.3200370
  15. 15.
    Karl, W., Arthur, G.: Do you need a blockchain. https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/375.pdf
  16. 16.
    Nakmoto, S.: Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schulzrinne, H.: Double submissions: publishing misconduct or just effective dissemination? SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. pp. 40–42 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1145/1568613.1568622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shafagh, H., Burkhalter, L., Hithnawi, A., Duquennoy, S.: Towards blockchain-based auditable storage and sharing of iot data. In: Proceedings of the 2017 on Cloud Computing Security Workshop, pp. 45–50 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1145/3140649.3140656

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nitesh Emmadi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lakshmi Padmaja Maddali
    • 1
  • Sumanta Sarkar
    • 1
  1. 1.TCS Innovation LabsHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations