Towards Promoting the Culture of Sharing: Using Blockchain and Artificial Intelligence in an Open Science Platform.

Mouna Denden; Mourad Abed

doi:10.9781/ijimai.2025.02.012

Authors

Mouna Denden Univ. Polytechnique Hauts de France.
Mourad Abed Univ. Polytechnique Hauts de France.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.9781/ijimai.2025.02.012

Keywords:

Artificial Intelligence, Big Data, Blockchain, Culture of Sharing, Open Science

Supporting Agencies

This study is funded by REUNICE project. REUNICE has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement No 101035813.

Abstract

Several studies in the literature have proposed the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools to manage big data and further enhance collaboration between researchers on open science platforms, hence promoting the culture of safely sharing reliable data. Moreover, some other studies further proposed the use of blockchain technology to secure data, provide transparency in data analysis, and also keep track of all collaborations within open science platforms. Despite the importance of AI and blockchain technology in open science platforms, no study, to the best of our knowledge, has implemented and discussed the benefits of using both technologies together or how blockchain can enhance AI systems in open science. Therefore, to address this research gap, this study presents a newly developed open science platform that harnesses the power of AI and blockchain technologies to promote and foster a culture of sharing and seamless collaboration among universities worldwide. This platform was then validated through focus group analysis from the European University for Customised Education (EUNICE) partners, which is the project context of this present study. The findings revealed that the use of AI and blockchain enabled researchers and institutions to share open science more effectively. Specifically, the use of AI features in Open REUNICE enhanced data management processes, particularly by improving metadata accuracy, searchability and reusability, thereby addressing critical needs in research workflows. Additionally, the use of Blockchain was found to play a critical role in addressing legal challenges and enhancing user trust.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

UNESCO, “UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science,” UNESCO, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379949.locale=en. [Accessed: 23-Apr-2022].

K. Armeni, L. Brinkman, R. Carlsson, A. Eerland, R. Fijten, R. Fondberg, ... &, R. Zurita-Milla, “Towards wide-scale adoption of open science practices: The role of open science communities,” Science and Public Policy, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 605-611, 2021.

R. O. Wright, K. C. Makris, P. Natsiavas, T. Fennell, B. R. Rushing, and A. Wilson, “A long and winding road: culture change on data sharing in exposomics,” Exposome, vol. 4, no. 1, p. osae004, 2024, doi: 10.1093/exposome/osae004.

S. Leible, S. Schlager, M. Schubotz, and B. Gipp, “A review on blockchain technology and blockchain projects fostering open science,” Frontiers in Blockchain, vol. 16, 2019, doi: 10.3389/fbloc.2019.00016.

B. Fecher and S. Friesike, “Open Science: One Term, Five Schools of Thought,” in Opening Science, Cham: Springer, pp. 17-47, 2014, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_2.

C. L. Borgman, “Big Data, Little Data, No Data: Scholarship in the Networked World, Cambridge,” MA: MIT Press, 2015, doi: 10.7551/mitpress/9964.001.0001.

C. Tenopir et al., “Changes in data sharing and data reuse practices and perceptions among scientists worldwide,” PLOS ONE, vol. 10, no. 8, p. e0134826, 2015, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134826.

V. L. Patel and T. G. Kannampallil, “Data Sharing in Healthcare: Ethical and Legal Challenges,” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 403-408, 2019, doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocz038.

K. Wang, “Opportunities in open science with AI,” Frontiers in Big Data, vol. 2, p. 26, 2019, doi: 10.3389/fdata.2019.00026.

S. Tong, K. Mao, Z. Huang, Y. Zhao, and K. Peng, “Automating Psychological Hypothesis Generation with AI: Large Language Models Meet Causal Graph,” arXiv preprint, 2024, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.14424.

M. Denden, M. Abed, V. Holotescu, A. Tlili, C. Holotescu, and G. Grosseck, “Down to the rabbit hole: how gamification is integrated in blockchain systems? A systematic literature review,” International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, pp. 1–15, 2023.

R. Kumar et al., “Blockchain-based authentication and explainable AI for securing consumer IoT applications,” IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, 2023, doi: 10.1109/TCE.2023.3287565.

E. Karger, M. Jagals, and F. Ahlemann, “Blockchain for AI data—State of the art and open research,” in Proceedings of the 42nd International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Austin, TX, USA, pp. 12–15, Dec. 2021.

M. D. Wilkinson et al., “The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship,” Scientific Data, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2016, doi: 10.1038/sdata.2016.18.

L. Zhou, “Patient-centered knowledge sharing in healthcare organizations—Identifying the external barriers,” Informatics for Health & Social Care, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 409–420, 2017, doi: 10.1080/17538157.2016.1269106.

A. Zuiderwijk, M. Janssen, and K. Jeffery, “Towards an e-infrastructure to support the provision and use of open data,” in Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government, pp. 259, May 2013.

B. G. Patra, K. Roberts, and H. Wu, “A content-based dataset recommendation system for researchers—a case study on Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) repository,” Database, vol. 2020, p. baaa064, 2020, doi: 10.1093/database/baaa064.

T. Baker and L. Smith, “Educ-AI-tion rebooted? Exploring the future of artificial intelligence in schools and colleges,” Nesta, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/Future_of_AI_and_education_v5_WEB.pdf.

R. Ramachandran, K. Bugbee, and K. Murphy, “From open data to open science,” Earth and Space Science, vol. 8, no. 5, p. e2020EA001562, 2021, doi: 10.1029/2020EA001562.

O. E. Gundersen, Y. Gil, and D. W. Aha, “On reproducible AI: Towards reproducible research, open science, and digital scholarship in AI publications,” AI Magazine, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 56–68, 2018.

E. A. Olivetti et al., “Data-driven materials research enabled by natural language processing and information extraction,” Applied Physics Reviews, vol. 7, no. 4, 2020.

C. A. Bail, “Can Generative AI Improve Social Science?,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 121, no 21, e2314021121, 2024.

B. D. Mittelstadt, P. Allo, M. Taddeo, S. Wachter, and L. Floridi, “The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate,” Big Data & Society, vol. 3, no. 2, p. 2053951716679679, 2016, doi: 10.1177/2053951716679679.

H. F. Atlam, M. A. Azad, A. G. Alzahrani, and G. Wills, “A review of blockchain in Internet of Things and AI,” Big Data and Cognitive Computing, vol. 4, no. 4, p. 28, 2020, doi: 10.3390/bdcc4040028.

Z. C. Lipton, “The mythos of model interpretability,” arXiv preprint, 2016. Available: arXiv:1606.03490.

M. Nassar, K. Salah, M. H. ur Rehman, and D. Svetinovic, “Blockchain for explainable and trustworthy artificial intelligence,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, vol. 10, no. 1, p. e1340, 2020, doi: 10.1002/widm.1340.

B. Mons et al., “Cloudy, increasingly FAIR; revisiting the FAIR Data guiding principles for the European Open Science Cloud,” Information Services & Use, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 49–56, 2017, doi: 10.3233/ISU-170824.

D. Amodei et al., “Concrete problems in AI safety,” arXiv preprint, 2016. Available: arXiv:1606.06565.

R. Shinde, S. Patil, K. Kotecha, and K. Ruikar, “Blockchain for securing AI applications and open innovations,” Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, vol. 7, no. 3, p. 189, 2021, doi: 10.3390/joitmc7030189.

A. M. Antonopoulos and G. Wood, Mastering Ethereum: Building Smart Contracts and DApps, Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, 2018.

H. Anwar, “Blockchain vs. Distributed Ledger Technology,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://bit.ly/2SFTRZ0.

C. Furlanello, M. De Domenico, G. Jurman, and N. Bussola, “Towards a scientific blockchain framework for reproducible data analysis,” arXiv preprint, 2017. Available: arXiv:1707.06552.

M. Dansinger, “Dear plagiarist: a letter to a peer reviewer who stole and published our manuscript as his own,” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 166, no. 2, p. 143, 2017, doi: 10.7326/M16-2414.

J. Belluz and S. Hoffman, “Science is often flawed: it’s time we embraced that,” 2015.

I. Osgood, “Differentiated products, divided industries: firm preferences over trade liberalization,” Economics & Politics, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 161–180, 2016, doi: 10.1111/ecpo.12082.

M. Barulli, F. Weigand, and P. Reboh, “Blockchain solutions for securing intellectual property assets and innovation processes,” Bernstein Product Deck, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://de.slideshare.net/mbarulli/1702-bernstein-product-deck.

T. D. Yates, “Enhancing healthcare information sharing with blockchain technology,” Open Science Journal, vol. 5, no. 2, 2020.

A. Tlili et al., “Towards utilising emerging technologies to address the challenges of using Open Educational Resources: a vision of the future,” Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 69, pp. 515–532, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s11423-021-09993-3.

M. Denden, “An open science strategy for EUNICE universities,” EUNICE European University, France, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://eunice-university.eu/research/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/09/REUNICE_DELIVERABLE_3.1.pdf.

P. Zhang, J. White, D. C. Schmidt, and G. Lenz, “Blockchain technology use cases in healthcare and research,” Advances in Computers, vol. 121, pp. 1–41, 2020, doi: 10.1016/bs.adcom.2020.05.001.

R. Kumar, V. Sharma, and N. Aggarwal, “Blockchain-based frameworks for secure and trustworthy AI systems,” Journal of Emerging Technologies, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 89–102, 2021.

R. Campos, V. Mangaravite, A. Pasquali, A. M. Jorge, C. Nunes, and A. Jatowt, “YAKE! Keyword extraction from single documents using multiple local features,” Information Sciences, vol. 509, pp. 257–289, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2019.09.013.

T. B. Brown et al., “Language models are few-shot learners,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.14165.

D. Patterson et al., “Carbon emissions and large neural network training,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.10350, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.10350.

Irwanto, Focused Group Discussion (FGD): Sebuah Pengantar Praktis, Yayasan Obor Indonesia, 2006. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.co.id/books?id=aRvyDQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=id&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false.

W. Boateng, “Evaluating the efficacy of focus group discussion (FGD) in qualitative social research,” International Journal of Business and Social Science, vol. 3, no. 7, 2012.

L. Casal-Otero et al., “AI literacy in K-12: a systematic literature review,” International Journal of STEM Education, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 29, 2023, doi: 10.1186/s40594-023-00371-x.

European Commission, “Digital skills for FAIR and open science,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Digital-Skills-for-FAIR-and-Open-Science.pdf. Accessed on: Jun. 24, 2024

H. C. Davis et al., “Bootstrapping a culture of sharing to facilitate open educational resources,” IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 96–109, 2009, doi: 10.1109/TLT.2009.26.

L. Lannom, D. Koureas, and A. R. Hardisty, “FAIR data and services in biodiversity science and geoscience,” Data Intelligence, vol. 2, no. 1–2, pp. 122–130, 2020, doi: 10.1162/dint_a_00034.

J. Leipzig, D. Nüst, C. T. Hoyt, K. Ram, and J. Greenberg, “The role of metadata in reproducible computational research,” Patterns, vol. 2, no. 9, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.patter.2021.100322.

A. Tlili and D. Burgos, “Unleashing the power of open educational practices (OEP) through artificial intelligence (AI): where to begin?,” Interactive Learning Environments, pp. 1–8, 2022, doi: 10.1080/10494820.2022.2054603.

D. Tapscott and A. Tapscott, Blockchain revolution: how the technology behind bitcoin is changing money, business, and the world, Penguin, 2016.

Y. Zhang, X. Xu, A. Liu, Q. Lu, L. Xu, and F. Tao, “Blockchain-based trust mechanism for IoT-based smart manufacturing system,” IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 1386–1394, 2019, doi: 10.1109/TCSS.2019.2956470.

A. Sinha, M. M. TK, S. Subramanian, and B. Das, “Text segregation on asynchronous group chat,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 171, pp. 1371–1380, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2020.04.147.

R. Kimmons and G. Veletsianos, “Education scholars’ evolving uses of Twitter as a conference backchannel and social commentary platform,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 445–464, 2016, doi: 10.1111/bjet.12428.

M. Hosseini, S. P. Horbach, K. Holmes, and T. Ross-Hellauer, “Open science at the generative AI turn: An exploratory analysis of challenges and opportunities,” 2024.

L. Nordling, “How ChatGPT is transforming the postdoc experience,” Nature, vol. 622, no. 7983, pp. 655–657, 2023, doi: 10.1038/d41586-023-03235-8.

F. Schönbrodt, “Training students for the open science future,” Nature Human Behaviour, vol. 3, p. 1031, 2019, doi: 10.1038/s41562-019-0726-z.

C. Allen and D. M. Mehler, “Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond,” PLoS Biology, vol. 17, no. 5, p. e3000246, 2019, doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000246.

D. Toribio-Flórez et al., “Where do early career researchers stand on open science practices? A survey within the Max Planck Society,” Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, vol. 5, p. 586992, 2021, doi: 10.3389/frma.2020.586992.