BitView: Using Blockchain Technology to Validate and Diffuse Global Usage Data for Academic Publications

  • Camillo LamannaEmail author
  • Manfredi La Manna
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11279)


We suggest that blockchain technology could be used to underpin a validated, reliable, and transparent usage metric for research outputs. Previous attempts to create online usage metrics have been unsuccessful largely because it has been difficult to co-ordinate agreement between all parties on the rules of data collection and the distribution of the workload of data synthesis and dissemination. Blockchain technology can be utilized to bypass this co-ordination problem. We propose the creation of a bibliometric blockchain (called BitView) which forms a decentralized ledger of the online usage of scholarly research outputs. By means of a worked example, we demonstrate how this blockchain could ensure that all parties adhere to the same rules of data collection, and that the workload of data synthesis is distributed equitably. Moreover, we outline how public-private key cryptography could ensure that users’ data remains private while librarians, academics, publishers, and research funders retain open access to all the data they require. It is concluded that a usage metric underpinned by blockchain technology may lead to a richer and healthier ecosystem in which publishers and academics are incentivized to widen access to their research.


Bibliometrics Blockchain Usage factor 


  1. 1.
    Seglen, P.O.: Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. Br. Med. J. 314(7079), 498–502 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    The PLoS Medicine Editors. The impact factor game. PLoS Med. 3(6), e291 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arnold, D.A., Fowler, K.K.: Nefarious numbers. Not. Am. Math. Soc. 58, 434–437 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Martin, B.R.: Editors’ JIF-boosting stratagems – which are appropriate and which not? Res. Policy 45(1), 1–7 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vanclay, J.: Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification? Scientometrics 32(2), 211–238 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bergstrom, C.T.: Eigenfactor: measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. College Res. Libr. News 68(5), 314–316 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zijlstra, H., McCullough, R.: CiteScore: A New Metric to Help You Track Journal Performance and Make Decisions (2016).
  8. 8.
    Trueger, N.S., Thoma, B., Hsu, C.H., Sullivan, S., Peters, L., Lin, M.: The altmetric score: a new measure for article-level dissemination and impact. Ann. Emerg. Med. 66(5), 549–553 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lindsey, D.: Using citation counts as a measure of quality in science: measuring what’s measurable rather than what’s valid. Scientometrics 15(3–4), 189–203 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bollen, J., Van de Sompel, H., Smith, J.A., Luce, R.: Toward alternative metrics of journal impact: a comparison of download and citation data. Inf. Process. Manag. 41(6), 1419–1440 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kurtz, M.J., Bollen, J.: Usage bibliometrics. Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 44(1), 1–64 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Glänzel, W., Gorraiz, J.: Usage metrics versus altmetrics: confusing terminology? Scientometrics 102(3), 2161–2164 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bollen, J., Van de Sompel, H.: Usage impact factor: the effects of sample characteristics on usage-based impact metrics. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59(1), 136–149 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pesch, O.: Usage factor for journals: a new measure for scholarly impact. Ser. Libr. 63(3–4), 261–268 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shepherd, P.: Altmetrics, PIRUS and usage factor. Insights 26(3), 305–310 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fleming-May, R.A., Grogg, J.E.: Standards, tools, and other products. Libr. Technol. Rep. 46(6), 11–16 (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Project COUNTER: The COUNTER Code of Practice for e-Resources: Release 4 (2012).
  18. 18.
    Shepherd, P., Needham, P.: PIRUS2: Final Report (2011).
  19. 19.
    MacIntyre, R., Alcock, J., Needham, P., Lambert, J.: Measuring the usage of repositories via a national standards-based aggregation service: IRUS-UK. In: Schmidt, B., Dobreva, M. (eds.) New Avenues for Electronic Publishing in the Age of Infinite Collections and Citizen Science: Scale, Openness and Trust: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Electronic Publishing, pp. 83–92. IOS Press, Amsterdam, Netherlands (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Needham, P., Stone, G.: IRUS-UK: making scholarly statistics count in UK repositories. Insights 25(3), 262–266 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Iansiti, M., Lakhani, K.R.: Truth about Blockchain. Harv. Bus. Rev. 95, 118–127 (2017)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
    Davis, P.: The Journal Usage Factor—Think Locally, Act Locally (2011).
  24. 24.
    Zeifman, I.: Bot Traffic Report 2016 (2016).
  25. 25.
    Foster, Z.:, personal communication (2018)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Orcutt, M.: Who Will Build the Health-Care Blockchain? MIT Technology Review, September 2017.
  27. 27.
    Heller, N.: Estonia, the Digital Republic, New Yorker, 18–25 December 2017.
  28. 28.
  29. 29.
    Ayemoba, A.: Africa’s First Multinational Blockchain Land Registry to be Launched in Kenya and Ghana. Africa Business Communities, December 2017.
  30. 30.
    Luther, L.: White paper on electronic journal usage statistics. Ser. Libr. 41(2), 119–148 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Peters, T.A.: What’s the use? The value of e-Resource usage statistics. New Libr. World 103(1–2), 39–47 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    McDowell, N., Gorman, G.E.: The relevance of vendors’ usage statistics in academic library e-resource management: a New Zealand study. Aust. Acad. Res. Libr. 35(4), 322–344 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bohannon, J.: Who’s Downloading Pirated Papers? Everyone. Science, 28 April 2016.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.University of St AndrewsSt AndrewsUK

Personalised recommendations