Blockchain-based DeSci solves science’s peer review problem — Hoskinson
2024-10-09

The world of science has a problem with too much centralization and not enough incentivization, at least according to supporters of the decentralized science (DeSci) movement. 
Among those supporters is Cardano co-founder Charles Hoskinson. The outspoken developer and CEO minced no words when he recently discussed the state of traditional scientific publishing, calling it “terribly broken.” 
Peer review
The problem Hoskinson and others are referring to, when it comes to the issue of peer review and pay incentives in science, is a long-standing area of concern throughout the entire scientific community. 
Peer review is a process by which qualified scientists review the work of others in order to verify its accuracy. Under the best of circumstances, it ensures that mistakes, miscalculations, or errors haven’t led to incorrect conclusions. 
In some situations, however, detractors claim that the peer review process is easily abused. Concerns are often raised over who should be qualified as a “peer” and whether the review process is fair and diverse enough to represent the breadth of scientific research.
One solution to this problem is to publish research as a “pre-print.” Rather than subjecting scientific assertions to the peer review process — which can be costly, depending on the journal the work is being submitted to — many research papers never make it past the initial publishing stage. While they’re able to show their work to the public, their claims may go unverified. 
DeSci
The DeSci movement aims to bridge the gap between traditional peer review and unfettered claims of scientific achievement with a system that incentivizes the participation of qualified reviewers. 
Instead of centralizing assets and control over a specific community, as is the case with many for-profit scientific journals, DeSci relies on a decentralized autonomous organization to guide the group’s protocols and use of funds. 
DeSci proponents claim that this eliminates the need for monolithic journals by incentivizing accredited scientists to participate in an economy where both the research and the peer review process are valued. 