Blockchain in peer review

Is Blockchain in Peer Review an Imminent Reality?

by

Table of Contents

Introduction

Peer review stands as the cornerstone of academic publishing. It’s the gatekeeper, the quality control mechanism that (well, ideally) separates sound scholarship from the dubious or flawed. Yet, despite its importance, the process is plagued by challenges: sluggish turnaround times, a lack of transparency, the administrative burden on journals, and the ever-present problem of reviewer fatigue. 

We’re in an era where digital technologies have revolutionized nearly every other aspect of our lives, and academic publishing is no exception. From desktop publishing to online submissions and open access models, the industry has undergone significant transformation. The latest, and perhaps most disruptive, technology knocking on the door of the scholarly ecosystem is blockchain. 

This distributed ledger technology, famous primarily for underpinning cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, possesses all the characteristics—immutability, transparency, and decentralization—that could radically enhance and streamline the peer review process. But is this just another technological pipedream, or is the integration of blockchain into peer review an imminent reality? 

This article will delve deep into the potential, the pitfalls, the pioneering projects, and the practicalities of making blockchain a standard feature in scholarly assessment. 

The Foundational Flaws in Traditional Peer Review

Before we explore how blockchain might fix peer review, it’s crucial to understand what’s broken. The current system, largely unchanged in its fundamental structure for centuries, faces several structural weaknesses that technology is uniquely poised to address.

One of the most pressing issues is the speed and efficiency of the peer review process. An author might wait months, sometimes over a year, to receive a final decision, a delay that slows scientific progress and delays the dissemination of crucial knowledge. This drag is often due to the time taken to find suitable reviewers, the time taken for them to complete the review, and the administrative back-and-forth. 

Compounding this is the significant lack of transparency. While some journals adopt open peer review, the dominant model remains single- or double-blind, where the identity of the reviewers is hidden. While intended to foster honest feedback, this anonymity can occasionally shield poor or biased reviews and allows the journal to maintain an opaque record of the assessment process. 

Furthermore, the immense administrative burden placed on journal editors and editorial assistants is unsustainable. They must manage countless submissions, track reviewer assignments, chase late reviews, and handle revisions, all of which consume substantial resources. A study estimates that the total monetary value of peer review labor contributed by researchers globally was over $1.5 billion annually, highlighting the significant amount of unpaid work involved in managing peer review across all academic journals. 

Perhaps the most human of the flaws is the problem of reviewer recognition and credit. Reviewers, the unsung heroes of academic publishing, dedicate hundreds of hours annually to the arduous task of evaluating manuscripts, almost always for free. They receive minimal formal acknowledgment, a situation that exacerbates reviewer fatigue and makes it increasingly difficult for editors to secure quality, timely reviews. 

Early career researchers, in particular, struggle to get recognition for their peer review work on CVs or funding applications, despite its critical contribution to the scientific record. This complex set of interconnected problems makes a compelling case for a paradigm shift, and many in the tech world see blockchain as the perfect disruptive agent.

How Blockchain Could Re-engineer Peer Review

The core attributes of blockchain technology—decentralization, immutability, and cryptographic security—offer direct solutions to many of the system’s current failings. The shift isn’t just about digitizing the process; it’s about fundamentally redesigning the system of trust and verification.

Establishing an Immutable, Transparent Record

Blockchain creates a tamper-proof ledger of every action within the review process. Once a review is submitted, a transaction is recorded on the distributed chain, complete with a timestamp and a cryptographic hash. This solves the transparency and record-keeping issues instantly. 

A journal could implement a system where a review’s submission, acceptance, revision requests, and final decision are all logged immutably. Even in a blind review setting, the journal maintains a transparent, auditable history of the process without compromising the reviewers’ anonymity. For instance, the system could verify that a review was submitted on a specific date by a credentialed user, making it impossible to falsely claim a review was submitted or to alter its contents later. 

This high level of data integrity is essential for maintaining trust in the scholarly record. Furthermore, the decentralized nature means this record isn’t held by a single entity, like a journal or a publisher, but is distributed across a network of computers, making it resistant to single points of failure or censorship.

Solving the Reviewer Recognition Crisis with Tokens

One of the most exciting and practical applications is using blockchain’s native incentive mechanism: cryptographic tokens (or coins). Reviewers could be automatically rewarded with digital tokens every time they complete a review to a certain quality standard. These utility tokens could represent verifiable proof of contribution. 

Imagine a system where upon a review being accepted by an editor, the smart contract automatically executes and transfers a specified number of tokens to the reviewer’s digital wallet. These tokens could then be used in various ways:

  • Verified Professional Credits: They serve as irrefutable, digital proof of contribution, making it easy for researchers to prove their service on CVs, for tenure applications, or to funding bodies.
  • Access to Services: Tokens could be redeemed for discounts on author processing charges (APCs) for open access journals, access to premium academic databases, or for professional development courses.
  • Community Governance: In more advanced models, token holders might gain voting rights within the publishing community or a specific journal’s editorial policy.

This tokenized incentive model, often referred to as Review-to-Earn (R2E), transforms a selfless, often thankless task into a recognized, quantifiable contribution. This direct financial or utility-based incentive is far more robust than current voluntary recognition schemes, potentially alleviating reviewer fatigue and attracting new, high-quality reviewers into the system.

Streamlining Workflow with Smart Contracts

Smart contracts, self-executing contracts with the terms of the agreement directly written into code, are the operational backbone of this transformation. In peer review, a smart contract could be programmed to automate the entire workflow:

  • Submission: When an author submits a manuscript, a smart contract initiates.
  • Reviewer Selection: The contract uses specific criteria (e.g., expertise, conflict of interest checks) to automatically suggest or invite reviewers from a decentralized registry.
  • Incentivization: Once a review is submitted, the contract automatically verifies its completion and instantly releases the review tokens to the reviewer’s wallet.
  • Decision Logging: The final editorial decision is logged on the chain, triggering notification to the author.

This automation significantly reduces the reliance on manual administrative work, cutting down on administrative costs and dramatically improving turnaround times. It takes the guesswork and the ‘chasing’ out of the editorial process, allowing editors to focus on scholarly judgment rather than clerical tasks. The efficiency gains alone are a major step toward making the review process fit for the speed of modern science.

Pushing the Boundaries: Pioneering Blockchain Projects

The idea of blockchain in academic publishing isn’t merely theoretical; several ambitious projects have moved from concept to pilot, demonstrating the practical viability of this technology in the scholarly ecosystem. These pioneers are addressing different aspects of the process, from identity management to tokenized incentives.

One prominent area of focus is researcher identity and reputation. Projects are exploring the use of decentralized identifiers (DIDs) where a researcher’s identity and their contributions (articles, reviews, datasets) are cryptographically linked to a digital identity they fully control, not one mediated by a commercial platform like ORCID or a university database. 

This ensures that their peer review history, verified by the blockchain, is permanently and securely linked to them. The immutability of the blockchain ensures that this contribution history cannot be erased or manipulated, leading to a truly verifiable and global reputation score.

Another significant effort focuses on tokenized peer review platforms. Several startups and open-source initiatives are building decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) around specific academic fields. In these models, the community of researchers itself governs the review process. For example, a platform might issue tokens for reviewing, and those tokens give the holders the right to vote on editorial policy or even on which manuscripts get published. 

This truly decentralized publishing model removes the traditional publisher as the central authority and places the power back into the hands of the scholars who generate and validate the research. While these projects are still in their infancy, their existence proves that the technological hurdles are being overcome, and they are creating the first working blueprints for a blockchain-based scholarly future. 

Crucially, the growth in blockchain applications within finance and supply chain management provides a vast, maturing technical infrastructure that academic publishing can readily adapt. In 2024, the total value locked (TVL) in decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols alone surpassed $100 billion, illustrating the reliability and security of these decentralized systems.

The Imminent Challenges to Adoption

Despite the compelling use cases and the encouraging early projects, declaring blockchain integration an “imminent reality” would be overly optimistic without a candid discussion of the significant challenges that stand in the way. The road from pilot project to widespread adoption is long and fraught with technological, cultural, and political obstacles.

The Technical and Scalability Hurdle

First and foremost is the technical hurdle and the issue of scalability. Public blockchains like Ethereum, while robust, are often constrained by high transaction fees (known as “gas”) and limited throughput. Academic publishing involves a vast number of transactions; every submission, review assignment, review completion, and decision is a transaction. Implementing this on a mainnet blockchain could become prohibitively expensive and slow, essentially trading one inefficiency (slow review times) for another (slow block confirmation). 

While Layer 2 scaling solutions (like rollups) and the rise of more efficient, permissioned blockchains (like Hyperledger Fabric) offer solutions, the industry would need to agree on a common, scalable, and cost-effective infrastructure. Furthermore, the integration requires complex API development to connect traditional editorial management systems (like ScholarOne or Editorial Manager) with the decentralized ledger, a significant undertaking for publishers who are often conservative in their IT investments.

The Cultural and Institutional Resistance

The cultural inertia within academia and publishing is arguably the toughest barrier. Scholars, editors, and established societies are naturally cautious about fundamental changes to a system they view as a guarantor of quality, however flawed. The adoption of blockchain requires a steep learning curve: reviewers and authors would need to manage digital wallets, understand tokenomics, and navigate decentralized platforms. 

For a community already overworked, adding this technological complexity is a tough sell. Publishers, who currently derive significant value from controlling the workflow, the data, and the reputation, may see blockchain as a direct threat to their business model, as it fundamentally shifts control away from them. Overcoming this deep-seated institutional resistance requires more than a better technology; it requires demonstrating clear, undeniable benefits without sacrificing the core values of academic rigor and quality control. This is a classic chicken-and-egg problem: researchers won’t adopt it until publishers use it, and publishers won’t invest until researchers demand it.

Regulatory and Standardization Needs

Finally, the lack of standardization and clear regulation is a major impediment. For blockchain-verified peer review to be truly effective, a global, agreed-upon standard for the token, the smart contract logic, and the metadata structure is essential. Otherwise, we end up with dozens of competing, isolated blockchain systems, which defeats the purpose of creating a unified, global ledger of scholarly contributions. 

Furthermore, the regulatory environment for digital assets and tokens is constantly shifting, creating legal uncertainty, particularly in terms of tax implications for reviewers receiving tokens as compensation. Without a clear path forward on legal and technical standards, large publishers and established societies are unlikely to risk widespread implementation.

The Tipping Point: Assessing Imminence

Given the significant opportunities and the serious challenges, where does the industry stand on the continuum toward “imminent reality”? The answer lies in a nuanced assessment of the current trends.

The move toward blockchain in peer review is better characterized as an inevitable slow march rather than a sudden, imminent leap. The drivers for change—the need for better efficiency, transparency, and reviewer recognition—are simply too strong to ignore. The current system is fraying under the sheer volume of research, with the global output of scientific and engineering articles growing by an estimated 4% annually. This pressure will continue to force the industry to explore radical solutions.

The tipping point will likely be reached when two major conditions are met:

  • Massive Publisher Adoption: A major, well-respected academic publisher or a large scholarly society must announce a fully integrated, blockchain-based peer review system and successfully run it for a year, demonstrating significant improvements in efficiency and cost reduction. This provides the necessary validation for the rest of the industry.
  • User-Friendly Interface: The technological complexity must be entirely hidden from the end-user. The interface for submitting a review or claiming tokens must be as simple and intuitive as current web-based systems. As blockchain infrastructure matures and ‘middleware’ solutions improve, the user experience will become less daunting.

We are currently in the early adoption phase, characterized by small-scale, experimental projects. While this shows the technology is viable, the scale of global academic publishing is immense, and integrating a new infrastructure takes years. We might reasonably expect niche adoption within the next three to five years, where specific academic disciplines or open-access mega-journals implement tokenized peer review. 

For blockchain-powered peer review to become an industry-wide reality, meaning within the majority of journals globally, a timeframe closer to seven to ten years is more realistic. This period will allow for the technical standards to solidify, the legal framework to stabilize, and the cultural resistance to soften as early adopters demonstrate success. The shift is coming, but it will be a gradual evolution driven by necessity, not a sudden revolution sparked by novelty.

Conclusion

The future of peer review is undoubtedly digital, and the distributed ledger technology offered by blockchain provides a compelling and arguably necessary path forward. The technology has the potential to solve the process’s most intractable problems: injecting transparency via immutable records, providing genuine and quantifiable recognition for reviewers through tokens, and dramatically increasing efficiency through automated smart contracts. 

While the theoretical promise is immense, the practical challenges surrounding scalability, institutional inertia, and the need for global standardization remain substantial. The journey is already underway, spearheaded by pioneering projects that are creating the first verifiable, tokenized research contributions. The question is not if blockchain will integrate into peer review, but when and how fast. 

The current landscape suggests we are poised for a significant, multi-year transition. It is not an imminent reality in the sense of next year’s editorial calendar, but it is an inevitable reality that is already shaping the foundational technology of scholarly communication. Researchers and publishers alike must pay close attention to the developments in this space, as the next evolution of academic quality control will be decentralized and digitally secured.

Leave a comment