Q&A on EUREKA’s Convenience Layer
What is your role at EUREKA?
I’m the CTO of EUREKA.
What is your field of expertise?
I’m a computer science professor at the Hochschule für Technik Rapperswil, where I teach front-end engineering, and distributed systems and blockchains.
What is the most technically challenging part of the EUREKA Project?
A technical challenge is that we want to make it as easy as possible for users to interact with the system. Currently, if you use cryptocurrencies, the user experience is far from ideal, and it’s our goal to make the experience of using the EUREKA token as simple as possible.
What should a user interface do? What are some of the important aspects of having a more user friendly interface?
One click to trigger an action. Right now, if you’re using smartcontracts in, for example, MyEtherWallet, you need to specify the method and arguments to execute an action. And you need to know how Ethereum works. Abstracting this from the user is, I think, quite challenging. But if we want to have the scientific community working with EUREKA, we shouldn’t assume that they are familiar with the particulars of blockchain. It should just be as simple as a centralized platform.
So the goal is to have something that is based on smartcontracts but is still really accessible to the average user who is familiar with, say for instance, the ScienceMatters platform. Could they use it as well?
Yes, exactly.
What is the connection between the smart contract and the user interface? And how is it being done now and how would it be done with EUREKA?
With EUREKA we’re building this convenience layer. That means you interact via a website with our servers and our server takes care of the blockchain stuff.
So the convenience layer is like a user interface, or does it interact with the user interface?
It’s the user interface and it abstracts the blockchain. However, the overall goal of our approach is that the core EUREKA platform could be run without a convenience layer. Although, as the name suggests, it’s much more convenient to run with the convenience layer.
So that’s for the end user, will there be a different experience for authors? What will the convenience layer or user interface look like for them? Will it be different for reviewers? Will it be different for editors? Or will it be a singular version that everyone has access to which looks the same?
The idea is provide a convenience layer as well as APIs. The idea is that with this API, we could integrate EUREKA into other platforms as well. Currently one big focus is ScienceMatters but there can be other platforms, for example JEMS, that could be integrated. We’re designing the API in such a way that it could potentially run with any system. And that means that the reviewer or the author would see something different depending on the platform.
The waiting game: how the culture of the academic publishing industry is stifling global research and development
Bo‐Christer Björk and David Solomon (in an open access paper available here) identify three problems which affect the publication process in academia.
First, under traditional subscriptions to journals, access to information and research findings is not adequate. In practical terms this means that libraries must renew subscriptions to access journals (in print or electronic form) behind paywalls. These academic libraries can be subject to institutional budget cuts. This could make it harder to maintain access to a wider variety of journals behind paywalls. And with the advent of file sharing websites like Sci-Hub, economic necessity, if not opportunism, has lead to a practice of circumventing subscription fees. The example of Aaron Swartz’s arrest in 2011 comes to mind. After hacking into MIT’s servers to download and distribute journal articles behind paywalls, the punishment for his crime would have included a hefty fine and a 35-year prison term. Swartz hanged himself in 2013.
Swartz’s actions, and his tragic death, are evidence of the dire need for access to research.
Second, the peer review process is patently unfair, and this process often affects, based on chance alone, the choice of which research output or article can be published. Under the current system of publication the services of peer reviewing and editing are essential in ensuring quality control of individual published articles and studies. However, peer reviewers and editors are typically not remunerated for the work of their applying expertise in reviewing and editing research. The submission fee for one article in a “high impact” journal can cost over 5 000 USD.
The argument for non-remuneration of peer reviewers and editors could be maintained on a basis of mutual benefit to authors of articles. Editors and reviewers are usually published authors themselves. This means that when the time comes for the editors and reviewers to publish, this group of people can call in a ‘favour’ which they earned reviewing an early author’s work.
Whether this ‘favour’ is more of an obligation is not a relevant question to pose at this point.
The essential point of understanding is that publishing houses outsource the work of review and editing to volunteer reviewers and editors. This is particularly disturbing when one makes comparison of the services within academic publishing industry to the services within the legal profession. As a thought experiment, imagine that lawyers had no professional structures which allowed them to charge a fee for checking a contract. This group of professionals would simply have to rely on an economy of favours. They would have to assume that when the time came they could exploit their professional networks in order to have a contract checked by the right expert. The sobering reality is that lawyers have refined the act of charging for their expert services to an exquisite art. Given the scarce skills and expertise required in the editing and reviewing process, one hopes that authors in academia might take note of this ‘exquisite art’.
This comparison raises important questions about the fairness of the non-remuneration of editors and peer reviewers.
The third problem is that the publication process of an article is often very delayed. This delay is compounded by a lengthy review process. This problem is dangerous for research and development because it contributes to a seemingly wanton stagnation of global research and development. Its cause is rooted in the outmoded mindset and lax attitude of traditional publishers. This mindset is exemplified by an existing practice of bundling of print journals. The reasons for this practice originate from page limits set in place due to the high cost of printing. Bundling the articles along type and length allows publishing houses to maximise their profits at the expense of delaying the publication of some article that do not make the cut until the next issue. In some cases that has lead to a serious bottleneck effect in the dissemination of published articles. The mindset extends beyond journals which issue printed volumes. This delay is compounded by the fact that authors must pass through several rounds of review, in which authors make changes to their work.
The review process can take years. Authors must implement changes to such a degree that the review might take on the level of work of the original project itself. Consequently some authors may actively choose to delay the submission of research to a publisher for fear of having their ideas stolen or ‘scooped’. Given the increasingly competitive nature of the ‘publish or perish’ world of academic, this hoarding of data might seem justified, however, its effects on scientific progress are deleterious.
Electronic journals and repositories are still partially affected by this outmoded mindset. Today, the practice of bundling electronic articles by type and length exists, to a somewhat limited extent.
As a millennial and digital native, I find this mindset infuriating. For those of us who come from a position of relative privilege, our generation has grown up with expectation having unfettered access to information on immediate and current basis. In short, we expect better. And our native knowledge of technology has allowed us to begin divest from publications behind paywalls. Judging by the number of uploads and downloads on certain websites which flaut copyright law, the infurituation can be followed by action.
My intention here is not to lambaste the entire publishing system within academia. My intention is to call attention to a culture of reluctance to embrace change which has caused some of the biggest publishing companies to fail to innovate. I also mean to offer solutions to these problems.
A researcher from an established research institute delays publication of their findings for several years. The existing system in academia incentivises researchers to delay publishing research until they have a sufficiently large ‘story’ in order to further their careers. As a result, several years can pass until important findings are published.
A researcher can instead publish multiple single observations on the EUREKA platform, giving other scientists the chance to incorporate these observations into their own research. As the single observations are recorded and timestamped on the blockchain, the researcher can take credit for their work immediately. This will be especially useful for junior researchers looking to make an early mark on their careers.
EUREKA is a scientific review and rating platform fuelled by the EUREKA token, which has the potential to radically improve the $20 billion global science publishing industry and the science research process.
Watch the introductory video featuring prominent academic supporters of our open science mission:
https://youtu.be/ScU9ytVP5WcJoin our Telegram channel to chat directly with the EUREKA team: https://t.me/joinchat/EXhWdw1KgAQgnraZhI9XBA
The EUREKA team is from the established open access Swiss science publisher www.sciencematters.io, which will be the first to implement the EUREKA Platform.
⚛ Check out our website and register for our newsletter:
https://eurekatoken.io
⚛ Read an introduction to EUREKA, our executive summary:
https://eurekatoken.io/exec_summary_en.pdf
⚛ Read our in-depth whitepaper:
https://eurekatoken.io/whitepaper_v3_1.pdf
⚛ Follow our Twitter account for regular updates and announcements:
https://twitter.com/TokenEureka/
⚛ Like and follow our Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/TokenEureka/
⚛ Check out our progress on Github:
https://github.com/eureka-blockchain-solutions
