Blockchain and Its Application in the Peer Review of Scientific Works: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Blockchain is a distributed ledger technology that ensures the security and transparency of data, guaranteeing that they cannot be altered. Its application in the peer review of scientific papers can contribute to improving the integrity, transparency, and efficiency of the process, mitigating issues of manipulation and fraud. This work analyzes the contributions of various research studies that address the use of blockchain technology in peer review. The study is a systematic literature review (SLR) in which the PRISMA methodology was applied. Fifty primary studies were identified through searches in databases such as Scopus, Science Direct, IEEE Xplore, and ACM. The analyzed research reveals innovative approaches, such as decentralized solutions, smart contracts, and token economy, to address challenges like biases, transparency, and speed in the review process. It is concluded that the use of blockchain in peer review processes is still emerging and has not yet been widely adopted globally. However, studies addressing this topic focus on its potential to improve transparency and trust in the process, offer incentives and rewards to reviewers and authors, enhance the quality and fairness of evaluations, and strengthen the security and privacy of the data involved.

1. Introduction

Progress in science is intrinsically linked to the prompt dissemination of knowledge. Each year, over 8.8 million experts worldwide generate more than 2.5 million new research publications. This impressive volume of production reflects an annual growth rate ranging between 8% and 9%. To address this constant increase, new scientific journals are established to accommodate the growing demand [1]; however, as the submissions of new publications increase, so does the need to improve editorial processes.

Peer review is essential in scientific publishing, as it ensures that works meet academic and scientific standards before being published. However, this process presents both benefits and challenges. In this context, blockchain technology has emerged as a potential innovation to address these limitations. As a decentralized, transparent, and immutable technology, blockchain can enhance the integrity of and trust in the peer review process by securely recording all stages of the process.

This article examines the use of blockchain technology in the peer review process for scientific publications, highlighting its potential benefits and the current limitations it faces. The research aims to provide insight into how blockchain technology can revolutionize editorial processes, promoting more efficient and transparent practices in academic communication. Through a systematic literature review, the following research questions are addressed:

RQ1: What are the challenges and limitations of peer review?

RQ2: What general benefits can blockchain technology bring to the peer review process?

RQ3: How can blockchain be applied in peer review?

This study aims to provide a deep understanding of the impact of blockchain on improving the peer review process within the scientific field, identifying both its advantages and current applications. In doing so, it seeks to open new research avenues and contribute to the development of more robust and reliable practices within the academic community.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Peer Review

The editorial process of scientific journals is essential for the high-quality dissemination of knowledge. The quality of this process relies on the responsibility, experience, and knowledge of authors, editors, and reviewers [2]. The collaboration and competence of these three actors are fundamental to ensuring the integrity and rigor of the research that reaches the scientific community and the general public. Academic communication is a systematic approach that includes the development, evaluation, dissemination, and maintenance of scientific works [3].

Another positive aspect is that peer review serves as an external validation mechanism. Reviewers, being specialized in the field, are able to assess the relevance and originality of the work, which enhances its credibility. Additionally, the process allows for the detection of errors or weaknesses in the study, whether methodological, conceptual, or interpretative, facilitating improvements to the research before it reaches a wider audience.

This process also enriches research by providing new perspectives and suggestions that strengthen its content. Ultimately, peer review filters publications, ensuring that only the most robust studies reach the scientific community, fostering trust in the published results.

According to Burnham [4], institutionalization of the peer review process was consolidated mainly in the 20th century, addressing both the need to manage the increasing volume of submitted articles and the demand for greater expert authority and objectivity in an increasingly specialized world. Today, it remains the only quality control mechanism dedicated to evaluating scientific results, improving the quality of published articles, determining manuscript originality, assessing the importance of findings, and detecting fraud and plagiarism [5]. Although this process is considered very important in the academic publishing system, it also faces criticisms. Despite its aim of improving the accuracy and correctness of articles, concerns persist about the effective detection of fraud or malpractice [6].

Sometimes, some researchers perceive it as a slow, costly, subjective, and bias-prone process. It is argued that the standard peer review model may be vulnerable to manipulation, affecting the credibility of published literature because it tends to favor positive results over negative ones, novel findings over replicative or incremental advances, and articles that present a clear narrative rather than acknowledging uncertainty [7]. Additionally, the lack of transparency in the process and the non-disclosure of results have faced criticism. Traditionally, peer review is confidential; the author does not know the identity of the reviewer, and the details of the report are not made public.

2.2. Blockchain Technology

Blockchain is a decentralized, transparent, and immutable technology that ensures the security and privacy of transactions through cryptography. It operates via a distributed consensus without intermediaries and enables process automation through smart contracts, making it resistant to modifications and external attacks [8]. Due to these characteristics, blockchains have found applications in various fields and have been studied and developed by researchers and companies. These applications range from financial markets and insurance to distributed storage. Blockchain-based solutions have also been proposed for the peer review of scientific articles, which could be applied to various academic activities such as conference presentations and monograph publications. However, its use is more common in the review of articles for academic journals [9].

The implementation of blockchain technology has emerged as a disruptive innovation with the potential to transform numerous sectors, and its application in the peer review of scientific publications represents a promising research area. Blockchain refers to a set of interconnected records that are highly resistant to modification and that are protected by cryptographic methods [10]. Cryptography is the study and practice of techniques for protecting information, ensuring that only authorized individuals can access and understand the data [11].

In an environment where transparency, integrity, and reliability are essential for safeguarding the quality and credibility of scientific research, blockchain stands out as an intriguing solution to address challenges inherent in the peer review process. Its features include consensus, which is the transaction accepted by all participants in the chain; provenance, which is the origin of the asset known to all participants; and immutability, which makes it impossible to alter an entry in the distributed ledger [3].

2.3. State of the Art

Several studies address the implementation of blockchain in the review of scientific publications. Notably, Farias et al. [9] conducted a systematic review of existing blockchain solutions in this field to identify opportunities for improvement in future applications. That study also explored how the peer review process affects the transparency of its execution and the handling of author anonymity, as well as how blockchain can help address the lack of incentives. However, it did not exhaustively address the problems and challenges of peer review via blockchain or the advancements in this area in published scientific work.

Similarly, Butijn et al. [12] developed a paper on the state of the art in blockchain technology, using a systematic and replicable approach that includes both white and gray literature. Their research questions addressed the definition of blockchain and its applications, properties, advantages and disadvantages, challenges, and research gaps. The study identified three main types of use cases: cryptocurrencies, smart contracts, and general applications, which are further divided into security and fraud detection, value and insurance, record-keeping, Internet of Things (IoT), and legal smart contracts.

On the other hand, the study by Leible et al. [13] examines how open science can benefit from blockchain technology and its properties, determining the requirements for an open science ecosystem and comparing them with the characteristics of blockchain to demonstrate that this technology is well suited as infrastructure.

Additionally, the report by Digital Science and Van Rossum [14] focuses on the potential of blockchain to transform academic communication and research in general. By describing significant initiatives in this field, it highlights how blockchain can influence many critical aspects of academic communication, including transparency, trust, reproducibility, and credit. It also suggests that blockchain could change the role of publishers in the future and have a significant impact on research beyond academic communication.

As mentioned in the literature, blockchain offers an innovative solution that can provide an immutable and transparent record of all stages of the review process, enhancing integrity and trust in the system. However, literature related to its application in the scientific realm is scarce. By exploring this technology and its uses in the peer review of scientific publications, relevant aspects of its applications can be understood.

3. Methods

This section describes the eligibility criteria, sources of information, search strategy, study selection process, data extraction process, data list, and effect measures utilized in this study. This study presents a series of research papers that were reviewed and analyzed through a systematic literature review (SLR), following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodology [15]. A systematic literature review (SLR) identifies research gaps, addresses specific questions or phenomena, and focuses on areas of interest. Its goal is to provide a fair assessment using a reliable, rigorous, and auditable methodology, summarizing existing evidence on a defined topic and offering a background framework [16].

The use of PRISMA allowed for the systematic review to be structured in a clear and consistent manner, with all processes and decisions regarding study inclusions and exclusions documented as per PRISMA guidelines. The adherence to these guidelines is emphasized to reinforce the reliability and reproducibility of the analysis, contributing to the quality and validity of the conclusions drawn, which are crucial for the integrity of the study and its potential impact on future research.

3.1. Eligibility Criteria and Sources of Information

The selected sources of information were the scientific databases Scopus, Science Direct, IEEE Xplore, and ACM. These databases, along with the established criteria, contribute to ensuring comprehensive and relevant coverage of the literature, ensuring that high-quality and pertinent studies are included in the analysis.

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Inclusion Criteria	Exclusion Criteria
Includes databases Scopus, Science Direct, IEEE Xplore, and ACM. Studies that address at least one research question. Studies from any year. Studies published in any language.	Duplicate studies. Studies with conflicts of interest. Books. Studies with retraction notices or errata. Studies that do not address at least one research question.

presents the selection criteria. These criteria are categorized into inclusion and exclusion criteria, detailing the parameters used in choosing the studies. This methodological selection allowed for a robust and comprehensive review of the state of the art on the implementation of blockchain in the peer review of scientific publications.

3.2. Search Strategies

To search for studies in the selected databases, keyword blocks related to the main study variables were first established. The first block included “blockchain” OR “block-chain”; the second block included “scientific article” OR “academic paper” OR “research publication” OR “scientific publication” OR “scientific paper” OR “academic”; and the third block included “peer review” OR “peer-review”. This approach was intended to ensure that the resulting research focused on the study topic (see

Table 2. Search strings.

Databases	Search Strings	Total
Scopus	(TITLE-ABS-KEY (blockchain OR block-chain) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“Scientific article” OR “Academic paper” OR “research publication” OR “scientific publication” OR “scientific paper” OR “academic”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“peer review” OR “peer-review”))	38
ScienceDirect	Title, abstract, keywords ((_Scientific article_OR_Academic paper_OR_research publication_OR _scientific publication_OR_academic_) AND (_peer review_OR peer-review) AND (_blockchain_OR_block-chain_))	11
IEEE Xplore	(“All Metadata”: blockchain OR “All Metadata”:block-chain) AND (“All Metadata”:”Scientific article” OR “All Metadata”:”Academic paper” OR “All Metadata”:”research publication” OR “All Metadata”:”scientific publication” OR “All Metadata”:”scientific paper” OR “All Metadata”:”academic”) AND (“All Metadata”:”peer review” OR “All Metadata”:”peer-review”)	10
ACM	[[All: blockchain] OR [All: block-chain]] AND [[All: “scientific article”] OR [All: “academic paper”] OR [All: “research publication”] OR [All: “scientific publication”] OR [All: “scientific paper”] OR [All: “academic”]] AND [[All: “peer review”] OR [All: “peer-review”]]	356
	Total	415

).

Once the keywords were identified, specific search strings were created for each database, incorporating the previously established inclusion and exclusion criteria. It is important to mention that the search was conducted up until 3 July 2024, resulting in a total of 415 candidate papers. The search strings used were as follows:

3.3. Study Selection Process and Data Extraction

Once the candidate studies were identified through searches in the aforementioned databases, the first filter involved a process of study refinement, during which duplicate studies were removed. Subsequently, the studies were assessed by title, abstract, and keywords to verify their relevance to the research questions [17]. The studies resulting from this analysis were then retrieved and reviewed in full text. After this process, a total of 50 primary studies were selected.

The compilation, classification, and organization of the extracted data were carried out using Excel, which facilitated the organization of the collected information. Collaboration among authors, the equitable distribution of responsibilities, and the use of appropriate tools were crucial aspects to ensure accurate and consistent data extraction. This information can be found in the Supplementary Materials. Figure 1 presents the study collection process using the PRISMA diagram.

3.4. Bias Risk Assessment

The review and evaluation for study selection were conducted collaboratively by all four authors of this paper. Each researcher was responsible for analyzing 25% of the studies and also acted as a reviewer for decisions made on at least another 25% of the studies reviewed by their colleagues. In cases of discrepancies in decisions, a third member of the author group intervened to resolve the situation. It is important to note that there were no significant discrepancies in the study review process among the researchers. This procedure was applied to both the selected studies and the primary studies. Additionally, it was verified that the studies did not have conflicts of interest.

The risk of bias in the studies incorporated into this systematic literature review (SLR) was subjected to a thorough review process by the authors. The results indicating the representativeness of the studies are presented in

Table 3. Assessment of overall article quality after the peer review process.

Type of Study	Number of Studies	Percentage (%)	Description
Candidate studies	415	100%	Studies resulting from the application of the search string.
Purged candidates	405	98%	Unique studies without duplicates.
Selected studies	59	14%	Studies after review of the title, abstract, and keywords.
Recovered studies	58	14%	Studies downloaded in full text.
Primary studies	50	12%	Studies reviewed in full text.

, with the aim of allowing an assessment of the quality of the full articles. According to the data presentation, only 12% of the total candidate studies were selected for detailed analysis and inclusion in the research. The substantial reduction from the total number of studies to the primary studies was due to the fact that in the ACM database, where specific search filters could not be applied, the search string results returned books on various topics rather than on the specific research topic.

3.5. Synthesis Methods

A detailed evaluation of the 50 studies was conducted, incorporating a full-text analysis. Given that the number of primary studies was not substantial, a meta-analysis was not used; instead, a narrative synthesis method was employed, which involved a qualitative review of the documents. The results are presented in tabular form to classify the information and to provide the reader with a clearer understanding of the issues in peer review, challenges to be overcome, and advancements in this study area. In this study, no sensitivity analyses were performed due to the nature of the research questions, which were focused solely on obtaining qualitative responses. The categorization approach was planned to simplify both the interpretation and analysis of the data.

4. Results

This section presents the findings derived from the systematic literature review on the use of blockchain technology in the peer review of scientific papers. It identifies the inherent challenges and limitations of the peer review process, explores the benefits that blockchain technology can bring to this process, and examines specific applications of blockchain in this context. The results offer a comprehensive view of the opportunities and challenges associated with integrating blockchain into the scientific review field.

4.1. Demographic Characteristics of the Studies

Figure 2 shows the distribution of scientific research related to the use of blockchain technology in the peer review process worldwide. The analysis reveals that most studies are concentrated in Europe and Asia, with China and the United Kingdom having the highest number of studies, each with eight. This is followed by the United States with seven studies and India with five. Countries represented in green each have three studies, while those in blue have two studies, and those in light blue each have one study.

Regarding the publication year, it is observed that studies on this topic began to appear from 2017, coinciding with the rise of blockchain technology. This increase in scientific production reflects the growing interest in and exploration of blockchain applications across various fields. The year with the highest number of publications on the use of blockchain in peer review was 2021, followed by 2019 and 2023 (see, Figure 3). This trend indicates an increasing recognition of blockchain’s potential benefits in improving the peer review process, driving researchers worldwide to explore and document its applications and advantages.

4.2. Challenges and Limitations of the Peer Review Process

Understanding the challenges and limitations of peer review is crucial for ensuring the quality and credibility of scientific research. This process, which is essential for the validation and dissemination of knowledge, faces various obstacles that can affect its effectiveness.

Table 4. Challenges and limitations of traditional peer review.

Challenges or Limitations	Description	Total	%
Impartiality	- Biased reviews: influenced by personal interests or reviewer prejudices. - Unnecessarily harsh reviews: criticisms that are not constructive. - Cultural, social, and intellectual biases: influences from cultural or social prejudices. - Corporate and financial interests: influence of commercial interests on article acceptance. - Conflicts of interest: reviewers with vested interests in the research outcomes.	24	48%
Resources and Recognition	- Lack of incentive and recognition: limited recognition and reward for reviewers. - Unpaid work: reviewers who do not receive financial compensation for their work. - Reviewer overload: excessive demands on reviewers.	20	40%
Transparency and Reliability	- Lack of transparency: opacity in the review process. - Manipulation of the review process: deliberate alteration of the process to favor certain outcomes. - Fraud and data falsification: intentional manipulation of the reviewed data.	17	34%
Efficiency	- Slowness in publication: significant delays in the review process. - Inefficient and lengthy processes: time-consuming review processes.	16	32%
Quality	- Inconsistency and lack of reliability: reviews may vary in quality and accuracy. - Poor-quality reviews: reviews that do not meet necessary standards.	13	26%
Administrative and Technical	- Administrative rules and barriers: bureaucratic obstacles in the review process. - Vulnerable submission platforms: security risks in platforms used for the article submission. - Resource wastage: inefficient use of human and financial resources.	9	18%
Academic Conduct	- Academic misconduct: unethical behaviors such as idea theft and altering evidence of plagiarism. - Severe criticism to block research: use of harsh reviews to hinder research.	8	16%
Equity and Accessibility	- Lack of equity: inequity in reviewing research with negative results. - Equity gap: inequalities in access and opportunity for publication. - Identity falsification: use of false identities in the review process.	7	14%
Costs	- High costs: review process that is costly in terms of time and intellectual investment. - High storage requirements: need for infrastructure to store large amounts of data.	6	12%

presents the main challenges and limitations identified in the literature. Understanding and analyzing these challenges helps to identify areas needing improvement and provides a basis for developing innovative solutions, such as the implementation of emerging technologies, to optimize the process and to strengthen scientific integrity.

The information revealed in the tables highlights several significant challenges in the peer review process within the scientific field. Issues of impartiality are the most frequently mentioned in the analyzed studies, including biased reviews due to personal interests, non-constructive criticism, cultural and social biases, commercial influences, and conflicts of interest. This issue is followed by the lack of incentives and recognition for reviewers, which encompasses unpaid work and reviewer overload.

Another identified problem is the transparency and reliability of the process, which is compromised by opacity, manipulation, and fraud. Efficiency is affected by the slowness and inefficiency of the review process. The quality of reviews can be inconsistent and sometimes does not meet the necessary standards. Administrative barriers, vulnerabilities in submission platforms, and resource wastage are technical and administrative problems. Unethical academic conduct, severe criticisms to block research, a lack of equity and accessibility, identity falsification, high costs, and elevated storage requirements also represent significant challenges. These issues underscore the urgent need to improve the peer review process to ensure the quality and integrity of scientific research.

4.3. Benefits of Blockchain Technology in the Peer Review Process

Understanding the benefits of blockchain technology in the peer review process and in the scientific field has the potential to revolutionize and enhance the integrity, transparency, and efficiency of this process. Blockchain can ensure the immutability and verifiability of data, reduce biases and conflicts of interest, and provide a secure and decentralized platform for managing reviews and scientific publications.

Table 5. Benefits of blockchain technology to the peer review process.

Benefits	Description	Total	%
Improvement of Transparency and Trust	- Greater transparency and reliability: blockchain allows for a clear and verifiable tracking of the review process. - Transparency in processes: facilitates visibility and accountability at all stages of review. - Trust in the review process: increases stakeholders’ trust in the integrity of the process.	28	56%
Incentives and Rewards	- Rewarding reviewers: provides financial and recognition incentives for reviewers. - Fair incentives: promotes motivation to conduct high-quality reviews. - Gamification of the process: introduces reward systems and reputation points to incentivize participation.	26	52%
Improvement of Quality and Fairness	- Improving the review quality: ensures more detailed and accurate reviews. - Fairness and accuracy in reviews: promotes a fair and equitable assessment of scientific articles. - Reduction of errors in scientific literature: minimizes failures and errors in reviewed publications.	18	36%
Security and Privacy	- Privacy protection: ensures anonymity and security of review data. - Data security: ensures the integrity and protection of information handled during the review process. - Protection of intellectual property: provides safeguards against plagiarism and the manipulation of scientific data.	16	32%
Efficiency and Cost Reduction	- Substantial cost savings: reduces overheads associated with peer review. - Reduction of time and costs: accelerates the review process and decreases the costs involved. - Increased speed in review processes: shortens the time between the receipt of an article and its publication.	15	30%
Decentralization and Democratization	- Decentralization of processes: eliminates the need for a central authority, distributing control and responsibility. - Democratization of publications: encourages equal opportunities in the access to and publication of research. - Transfer of decision-making powers: empowers the academic community rather than central editors.	12	24%
Protection Against Abuse and Misconduct	- Prevention and management of academic misconduct: mitigates risks of unethical behavior during the review process. - Preventing potential abuses: protects against manipulation and conflicts of interest in evaluations.	7	14%
Innovation and Technological Development	- Fostering innovation: promotes the use of new technologies and methodologies in peer review. - Contribution to the digital revolution: facilitates the adaptation of the review process to an advanced digital environment.	5	10%
Facilitation of Communication and Collaboration	- Improving communication among authors, editors, and reviewers: facilitates the exchange of information and feedback among all parties. - Promoting academic exchanges: encourages collaboration and knowledge sharing within the academic community.	5	10%
Automation and Standardization	- Automation of the review process: introduces automatic mechanisms to simplify and standardize peer review. - Standardization of review reports: provides uniform formats for review reports, improving consistency.	4	8%

presents the main benefits that blockchain technology can bring to the peer review process. By understanding these benefits, the scientific community can adopt more robust and reliable practices, thereby promoting the quality and credibility of research.

According to studies, blockchain technology presents a series of transformative benefits for the peer review process in the scientific field. Firstly, it significantly enhances transparency and trust by providing an immutable and transparent record of all stages of the review process. This ensures that every review and decision is traceable and verifiable, which is crucial for increasing the integrity of the process and for mitigating potential biases. In addition to transparency, blockchain promotes fairness and quality by standardizing the evaluation criteria and facilitating more detailed and accurate reviews. By ensuring that each article is evaluated fairly and objectively, blockchain can help reduce errors in scientific literature and improve the consistency in evaluations.

In terms of security and privacy, blockchain guarantees the protection of sensitive data and intellectual property during the review process. It uses advanced cryptographic techniques to protect the identity of reviewers, ensure the integrity of the reviewed data, and prevent plagiarism and result manipulation.

Another key aspect is the improved efficiency that blockchain brings to the process. By automating administrative tasks and standardizing review reports, operational costs and review times are reduced. This allows for faster responses to authors and shortens the publication cycle, which are crucial in an academic environment where speed and accuracy are essential.

The inherent decentralization of blockchain is also revolutionary for the academic community. It eliminates the reliance on centralized intermediaries and distributes control and responsibility among all participants in the review process. This democratizes scientific publications, promotes equal opportunities for all researchers, and empowers the academic community in editorial decision-making.

Besides these operational and structural benefits, blockchain fosters continuous innovation in peer review. It facilitates the integration of new technologies such as artificial intelligence and machine learning [18] to further enhance the efficiency and accuracy of reviews. By standardizing processes and enabling smoother communication among all involved parties, blockchain promotes a collaborative and knowledge-sharing culture within the global scientific community.

4.4. Application of Blockchain in the Peer Review Process

Blockchain acts as a secure and verifiable ledger that can enhance trust in academic evaluations by providing clear tracking of each stage of the process. This not only helps maintain the integrity of the reviewed data but also facilitates more transparent and fair decision-making in the publication of research.

Table 6. Application and description of blockchain uses in peer review.

Applications	Description of Uses	%
Tokens and Cryptocurrencies	- Offering incentives (often monetary) for reviewers’ work [9,19,20]. - Token-based peer review payment system [1,3,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41]. - Reward system for reviewers and authors for submitting high-quality reviews [42,43,44,45]. - Symbolic reward system, where academics receive tokens that contribute to their reputation for peer review [46]. - Incentive model ensuring direct rewards through SC and micropayments [47,48].	64%
Smart Contracts	- Implementation of smart contracts at various levels using blockchain technology to make stakeholders more accountable [3,34]. - Allows authors to issue a reward for open and anonymous peer reviews [28]. - Token generation, distribution, and destruction processes are automated and transparently disclosed via smart contracts [1,20,26,49,50]. - Academic honesty, integrity, and punctuality are enforced through role-based smart contracts between authors, reviewers, and editors [51]. - Smart contracts govern transactions, control access, and provide enhanced security [27,29,32,33,39,52]. - Verification and credibility assurance of data aggregation and processing [41,53,54].	36%
Reputation and Certification Systems	- Protocol that collects information on the peer review process [38,55,56]. - Certification system for invisible review tasks and workload measurement using blockchain technology [24]. - Use of digital signatures [57]. - Enable a decentralized reviewer reputation system based on an open-access infrastructure with transparent governance processes [3,39]. - Reviewer assignment based on databases considering their profile [42]. - Validate and disseminate AAM usage data in OA repositories, creating non-citation impact metrics and offering incentives to increase research visibility, potentially converting all journals to nearly zero-cost “green” open access [58]. - Incentives and sanctions for peer reviewers [3]. - Consensus system where different agents could act in research review, leaving a record of their actions [59]. - Educational certification system based on user credit [25]. - Support datasets, reviews and editorial decisions, subscriptions, and access transactions [34,60]. - System that allows the entire community to evaluate peer reviews and vote for the best ones [28].	28%
Transparency and Encryption	- Hash encryption to ensure document and review integrity and authenticity [9,20,32,48]. - Provide a chronological, transparent, and asset-tracking review ecosystem with formal incentives for the review process [9,31,58,61]. - Store data using blockchain and web applications, ensuring security and transparency [49]. - System that automatically creates a decentralized, tamper-proof, and publicly verifiable timestamp for each submitted manuscript using the cryptocurrency blockchain [35]. - Reviewers need a public key to access all information about a scientific publication [57]. - Encrypt reviewers’ identities to help them remain anonymous [26]. - Security and privacy protection for data transmission [47,52].	28%
Decentralized Platforms/Publications	- Provide a decentralized and distributed infrastructure for storing and sharing data [36,54,62]. - Preprint system designed to run on permissioned and permissionless blockchains [21]. - Decentralize academic publications and establish a token economy using blockchain technology [33,42]. - Cloud-based application that counts, tracks, and monitors the academic review process [55,63]. - Store scientific data and peer review results transparently, distributedly, permanently, and in a fault-proof manner, potentially breaking the strong relationship between journals and publishers [44]. - Create an independent ecosystem from publishers, allowing validated stakeholder groups to self-govern eventually [1]. - Enable high-quality reviews of published work while incentivizing authors and reviewers to participate in a public, open, and decentralized scientific publication platform [37,50,55,61]. - Transparent review process, storing different steps as transactions: article submission, review proposal and acceptance, review submission, author resubmission of improved versions, and reviewer ratings [50].	26%

presents a compilation of the main applications and uses of this technology that were identified in the SLR. Exploring these applications can open new opportunities to make peer review more reliable and accessible for all researchers.

Blockchain technology offers a series of innovative applications that can revolutionize the peer review process in scientific research. Firstly, the analyzed literature mentions tokens and cryptocurrencies, which are used to incentivize reviewers and authors. By providing monetary and reputation-based rewards through tokens for high-quality reviews, blockchain helps motivate participation and promotes a more rigorous and objective evaluation of articles.

Smart contracts, on the other hand, automate and ensure the execution of agreements between all the parties involved, from the issuance of rewards to the management of copyrights, thereby guaranteeing transparency and integrity in all academic transactions. Similarly, decentralized platforms and blockchain publications provide a distributed infrastructure for securely and transparently storing and sharing data, eliminating the reliance on intermediaries and ensuring equitable access to scientific information.

Additionally, blockchain-based reputation and certification systems enable the creation of verifiable reviewer profiles and transparent evaluation of their performance, enhancing trust in the review process. Finally, blockchain technology facilitates the implementation of robust security measures, such as hash encryption and decentralized timestamps, to protect privacy and to ensure the authenticity of reviewed documents. Collectively, these applications can address current peer review challenges, such as the lack of transparency and biases, promoting a more efficient, fair, and reliable system for the dissemination of scientific knowledge.

Several authors propose the use of smart contracts to automate transactions and rewards within peer review systems, as implemented by algorithms in Hyperledger Composer. These contracts ensure that agreements are fulfilled without the need for intermediaries, which streamlines the review process while guaranteeing the integrity of the reviews and the evaluation of authors. Additionally, the integration of plagiarism detection systems and reviewer ratings into the blockchain architecture helps maintain quality and transparency throughout the process [29].

Another relevant proposal is a decentralized compensation platform that employs non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and smart contracts to manage the peer review process. This system, based on the Ethereum network, utilizes a decentralized file storage server (IPFS) for data storage, providing a robust solution that enhances transparency, performance, and security [64]. In this model, reviewers are compensated with tokens, which reduces the opportunity costs of their participation. The use of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) for scientific publishing has also been proposed, focusing on aligning incentives through the automatic transfer of tokens based on smart contracts [65].

From the perspective of several authors, these technologies help address some of the traditional issues in peer review, such as reviewer anonymity, conflict of interest management, and fair compensation. For instance, the Ants-Review system, based on Ethereum, proposes an open peer review mechanism that preserves anonymity and promotes community collaboration in the validation of scientific articles [28]. Other approaches include the development of decentralized portals for managing conferences and journals, which protect reviewer privacy through encryption techniques and smart contracts.

In summary, authors emphasize blockchain’s potential to improve transparency, reduce biases, and provide incentives in the peer review process. However, challenges remain regarding its widespread adoption due to the lack of common standards and the need for further maturity in these technologies to overcome current technical and regulatory barriers.

4.5. Limitations of Blockchain Technology in the Peer Review Process

Blockchain, despite its promises of transparency, security, and immutability, presents several limitations and risks that have hindered its adoption in certain areas, such as peer review. One of the main drawbacks is scalability [29,50]. Blockchain networks, particularly those based on consensus mechanisms like Proof of Work, tend to be slow and require large amounts of computational resources, which can make them inefficient for managing large volumes of transactions or records [66]. Furthermore, the implementation costs, both in financial terms and technical infrastructure, can be considerably high, representing a barrier to adoption, especially in academic organizations with limited resources.

Another important factor is the legal and regulatory risks. The implementation of blockchain raises questions regarding data privacy and compliance with regulations, such as data protection laws (e.g., GDPR in Europe) [67]. Since data recorded on the blockchain is immutable, this could conflict with the right to be forgotten or the deletion of sensitive information [68]. Additionally, the legal implications regarding data ownership and the responsibility of nodes within a distributed network are not entirely clear, generating uncertainty and potential legal complications for institutions wishing to implement this technology [69].

The implementation of blockchain in the peer review of scientific papers is regulated by several key legal frameworks and regulations, such as the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which address privacy and data handling. Additionally, international standards like ISO/TC 307 and guidelines from the OECD Blockchain Policy Centre provide directives on the safe and ethical use of this technology. Initiatives like the European Blockchain Partnership and legislations such as the Blockchain Innovation and Competition Act in the USA promote innovation and establish specific regulations [70]. These documents ensure that blockchain can be effectively used in science, guaranteeing transparency, security, and legal compliance in data management and dispute resolution.

As for the reasons why blockchain has not yet been widely implemented, both technical and social aspects must be considered. The lack of common standards and interoperability between different blockchain networks has limited its use. Many applications rely on specific protocols, making integration with traditional systems more challenging [71]. Moreover, there is resistance to change in more traditional sectors, such as academia, where the adoption of new technologies requires not only significant investment but also a shift in institutional culture and accepted practices, such as the current peer review process.

Finally, another key reason why blockchain has not been widely implemented is the perception of uncertainty regarding its long-term viability. Although much has been said about its potential benefits, there is still a lack of solid empirical studies demonstrating its practical advantages in peer review or other academic processes [72]. This generates skepticism among the stakeholders involved, who prefer to wait until the technology matures further and the potential ethical, legal, and technical limitations are resolved.

5. Discussion

The results regarding the geographic distribution of research align with La Manna’s findings [58], which indicate that the highest concentration of scientific publications is in the Northern Hemisphere, where the major economic powers and the most developed countries in Europe and Asia are located. In contrast, research in the Southern Hemisphere, specifically in the South American and African continents, is scarce. This is reflected in the results, as only Brazil appears in this investigation, with only one study found from there. The scarcity of scientific research originating from the Southern Hemisphere may be due to the lower investment in research, language barriers, or the concentration of most publishers and scientific journals in the previously mentioned countries and continents.

Regarding the first research question, studies reveal that peer review faces multiple challenges, including issues of impartiality, where biased reviews [36], rude critiques [9], and conflicts of interest [54] prevail, along with insufficient resources and recognition [9,30,43], resulting in a lack of incentives and workload overload [24]; transparency and reliability problems [3,43], such as process manipulation and fraud; inefficiency due to delays and long processes; variability in review quality; administrative and technical barriers, including vulnerable platforms and resource waste [35]; academic misconduct [38,68], including idea theft [57]; inequities in access and review; identity falsification; and high costs associated with the time and infrastructure needed for the review process [23].

To address impartiality issues in peer review, various studies suggest that implementing tokens and cryptocurrencies can offer an effective solution [19,21,23]. By rewarding reviewers with monetary or symbolic incentives, active participation is promoted, and the quality of contributions is recognized. Sivakumar et al. [3], propose incentive and sanction systems for both reviewers and authors. These systems foster a culture of high-quality reviews, minimizing personal influences, reviewer biases, or conflicts of interest [31]. Additionally, as these transactions are recorded on a blockchain, transparency is ensured, and manipulation of the review results is prevented. However, it is important to note that in a fair peer review process, it is essential to ensure that the incentive system and speed do not compromise the quality of the review. It is crucial to maintain a balance to ensure that the review is both timely and rigorous.

Smart contracts represent another valuable application of blockchain technology in peer review. These contracts can automate and make transparent the processes of token generation, distribution, and destruction [49,50]. By employing smart contracts, it is ensured that the involved parties are accountable for their actions, promoting honesty, integrity, and punctuality in the academic process [51]. For example, authors can issue rewards for open and anonymous reviews, while reviewers can receive payments once an editor accepts the review and confirms that it meets the journal’s quality requirements [34]. This not only promotes accountability but also provides a clear and verifiable structure for the compensation and recognition of reviewers.

Decentralized publication platforms also play a crucial role in improving the peer review process. These platforms provide a secure and distributed infrastructure for storing and sharing scientific data [54]. By decentralizing the storage and management of review data, the dependency on specific publishers and journals is reduced, breaking the strong relationship between these entities and the control of publications [44]. Blockchain-based platforms can track and monitor the review process in real time, ensuring transparency at every stage [47]. This includes article submission, review proposal and acceptance, review submission, improved article versions, and reviewer ratings, guaranteeing a more open and accessible review process [50].

Reputation and certification systems enabled by blockchain can collect detailed information on the peer review process, offering a way to validate and certify reviewers’ contributions [55,60]. These systems can use digital signatures [57] and security protocols to ensure data integrity and to provide a decentralized reputation system [55]. Based on an open-access infrastructure and transparent governance processes, these systems can assign reviewers more fairly and equitably, considering their profile and experience. Additionally, by offering non-citation impact metrics and rewards for increasing research visibility [58], these systems can convert all journals to open access [50], reducing costs and promoting greater equity in the access to scientific publications. However, it is important to consider specific guidelines regarding this issue, as the author’s rating can also present problems. For instance, an author might give a high rating to a reviewer simply because the reviewer did not request major changes to the document.

Finally, transparency and encryption are fundamental to ensuring the integrity and authenticity of documents and reviews in the peer review process [24,73]. The use of hash encryption can guarantee that documents and reviews are not altered [26], providing a chronological and transparent record of all transactions related to the review process [23]. Additionally, reviewers’ identities can be encrypted to maintain anonymity and protect privacy [52], helping to mitigate conflicts of interest and to reduce bias. These systems can also create a decentralized, tamper-proof, and publicly verifiable timestamp for each submitted manuscript, ensuring that all involved parties can trust the integrity of the review process [35]. Collectively, these blockchain applications address a wide range of challenges in the peer review process, from impartiality and transparency to efficiency, quality, and equity, providing a solid foundation for improving the scientific publication ecosystem.

Blockchain technology has the potential to revolutionize the peer review of scientific papers by offering greater transparency, security, and efficiency in the process. By using blockchain, an immutable audit trail [73,74] can be created that records each stage of the review from manuscript receipt to the publication of reviewers’ comments. This not only ensures the provenance and authenticity of the data but also discourages fraud and misconduct, as all involved parties have equal access to the facts [75]. Furthermore, the decentralization of blockchain can eliminate the need for intermediaries, streamlining the process and reducing costs. However, for this application to be viable, it is essential to address legal and regulatory challenges, such as data protection and privacy compliance [76]. A clear and robust legal framework is crucial to ensure the legitimacy and acceptance of blockchain in the scientific domain [65], allowing participants to trust in the legal security of transactions and dispute resolutions.

6. Summary and Concluding Remarks

Blockchain technology has emerged as a promising tool to address subjectivity and bias in the peer review process. Various studies have proposed innovative solutions that explore the integration of blockchain throughout the scientific workflow, from publication and review to conference management. This technology aims to improve the quality and fairness of peer review while redefining the structure and culture of academic communication.

The SLR reveals a diverse landscape of innovative approaches aimed at transforming the peer review process through the implementation of blockchain technologies. In the realm of improving open review and mitigating biases, the need to address challenges such as impartiality, subjectivity, the lack or absence of reviewer recognition, efficiency problems, transparency, and quality in the review process stands out. Decentralization has emerged as a key solution, exploring mechanisms such as smart contracts, tokens, and consensus platforms to optimize transparency and efficiency.

Tokens and cryptocurrencies can be used to incentivize reviewers and authors, providing monetary and reputational rewards for high-quality reviews, which not only motivate participation but also promote a more rigorous and objective evaluation of articles. Smart contracts, on the other hand, automate and secure the execution of agreements among all involved parties, from the issuance of rewards to the management of copyright, thus ensuring transparency and integrity in all academic transactions. Decentralized platforms and blockchain-based publications provide a distributed infrastructure for securely and transparently storing and sharing data, eliminating the reliance on intermediaries and ensuring equitable access to scientific information. Moreover, blockchain-based reputation and certification systems enable the creation of verifiable reviewer profiles and transparent evaluation of their performance, enhancing trust in the review process. Finally, blockchain technology facilitates the implementation of robust security measures, such as hash encryption and decentralized timestamps, to protect privacy and to ensure the authenticity of reviewed documents. Together, these applications not only address current challenges in peer review, such as lack of transparency and bias, but also promote a more efficient, fair, and reliable system for disseminating scientific knowledge.

It is important to highlight some limitations of this study, primarily the number of manuscripts addressing this topic, which is a promising but still underdeveloped research area. Additionally, there are many challenges to tackle, as discussed in this document, and practical results are not yet known. The feasibility of this technology will need to undergo significant scrutiny before large-scale implementation.

Future research could focus on improving the scalability and technological efficiency of blockchain platforms used in peer review, as well as on developing interoperable standards to facilitate its integration within existing systems. Additionally, it is crucial to address cultural and educational barriers that limit the widespread adoption of this technology in academic settings. Research on advanced security and privacy techniques in blockchain is necessary to protect the integrity of reviewed data. Longitudinal studies should also be conducted to evaluate the long-term impact of blockchain on the review quality, editorial productivity, and global accessibility to research. Moreover, exploring ethical frameworks and governance models will ensure fair and transparent practices, while economic and sustainability analyses of token- and cryptocurrency-based models will provide insights into their long-term viability and effectiveness.