Non-fungible science

One of the most game-changing moments in scientific publishing was the migration of printed works to online publication. No longer limited by physical prints, an article could be digitally duplicated and distributed via the web with ease. As this online model continues to evolve, new platforms may arise to replace the traditional PDF format that is currently ubiquitous in the industry. Recently, non-fungible tokens (NFTs) have entered the online space as a new kind of “digital asset.” Is there a similarity between NFTs and journal papers? Can we use NFTs as a model to add value to research articles? First, we need to know what an NFT is. If you are following emerging technology in any meaningful way recently, you’ve like come across the concept of NFTs, which are digital assets arriving in the cryptocurrency space. In simplest terms, an NFT is a unique and non-interchangeable unit of data stored on a digital ledger (i.e., blockchain). Dropping the “non” prefix, fungible refers to items or commodities that can be exchanged with other assets or commodities of the same type. For example, currency is a fungible asset because it can be exchanged for other currencies, goods, or pay for services. Cryptocurrencies are fungible because I can swap Bitcoin for Ethereum for US dollars at set (although highly dynamic and fluctuating) rates. An NFT cannot necessarily be easily exchanged for something of equal value. Art and collectibles are often considered non-fungible because of their one-of-a-kind (or at least limited) properties. They cannot easily be appraised, exchanged, or fractionalized. The most common type of NFT is a simple image file and can be thought of as digital artwork. The existence on the blockchain is analogous to a certificate of authenticity and use blockchain technology to establish a verified and public proof of ownership. Multiple copies can be made, just as multiple copies of the Mona Lisa can be mass produced, but only one “authentic” version exists on the blockchain, just like only one “real” Mona Lisa hangs in the Louvre. The art analogy is common, as (1) it is a clear and easily understood example of unique items that have value (i.e., are an asset); and (2) many of the current NFTs for sale online are (digital) works of art. One could imagine other use cases for NFTs, however, including event tickets (one NFT per assigned seat) or personal identification and/or records existing on the blockchain. If it can be digitized and requires both uniqueness and potential traceability, then an NFT is an option. They are a binary version of an “original copy.” Now, let’s turn our attention to scientific articles. Are they fungible or non-fungible? They are unique; the impact (or scientific value) cannot be easily appraised; and one cannot fractionalize them (i.e., you can’t publish one-quarter of a paper). Seems non-fungible to me. I could not swap one scientist’s 10 publications for another’s and consider them equal. Akin to original works of art, works of science are perhaps an early precursor to NFTs. Indeed, like the digital images in the NFT space, many copies of a single scientific article can be made, but there is only a single owner (i.e., copyright holder). Instead of blockchain, the record of a published work is kept on “ledgers” such as Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Even pre-internet, hard copies of published works were connected and linked via a network and record of citations. Extending the analogy, there is also proof of work that is required to “mint” the academic article in the form of peer review (for NFTs, minting is the act of creating the item on the blockchain, and usually incurs some cost). Moreover, each journal (or maybe publisher) can be thought of as a singular blockchain, as an NFT can be minted via Ethereum, Cardano, Solana, Tron, etc., to name a few, analogous to Matter, Science, Nature, etc. Each blockchain, like each journal title, has its own pros and cons and associated costs. If you happen to collect or own NFTs, you know that you can “store” them in your wallet, but it isn’t really physical storage (even in the digital sense). In effect, a crypto wallet (tied to a blockchain) is just a unique link that points you to the NFT on that blockchain. In other words, the NFTs “in your wallet” are just proof that you are linked to those items on the blockchain, like a listing of assets (or a bank statement if you’re dealing with currencies). If your wallet app crashes, for example, the NFTs are always on the blockchain (just backup your private keys). If science articles were NFTs, your wallet would just be a listing of all the papers you have published, linked to the record on the blockchain. Interesting. It sounds very similar to existing Google Scholar or ORCID profiles, which provide a means to track publication records. Imagine pulling your curriculum vitae from the blockchain, representing a verified immutable history of your publications. Borrowing from current NFT cases, other uses could also be implemented using science article NFTs. For example, Time magazine recently sold a series of NFTs known as TIMEPieces—original artworks themed around the idea of “Building a Better Future.” Along with the art, ownership of a TIMEPiece enables unlimited access to TIME.com, exclusive invites to events (both in person and digital), and whitelisted opportunities to purchase future NFTs. A very cool project with intent to build community via NFT-based loyalty rewards system. Imagine science NFTs enabling access to journal articles, exclusive webinars, or conference registration discounts. Imagine linking a digital wallet/CV once and never having to type your name, address, and email any time you had to register or sign-up for anything—in effect, making your published works have intrinsic utility. Blockchain technology also has an advantage of tracking the history of a potential article. Frequently at Matter, we receive submissions of articles that were submitted, potentially reviewed, and ultimately rejected at other titles. I was a researcher once, and I realize this is the name of the game. Many authors are transparent about the history of their works, but many also omit those details from the cover letter (which is OK too; we approach every manuscript the same). The benefit (for us) is whether it has been revised substantially and what has changed. Such a record (or revisions) could easily be kept on the blockchain. Imagine the complete history of the manuscript—a (possible) preprint followed by submission to journal A, rejection by journal A, revision by authors, submission to journal B, peer review, more revisions by authors, acceptance, and final publication in journal B—all tracked and linked to the paper. Review reports and data sets could also potentially be associated. The intersection of academic publishing to the current crypto-based NFTs is an interesting thought exercise, and one could extract many analogies and similarities between the two. There could be benefits to such implementation. That being said, one elephant in the room that I purposely neglected to discuss is the vast energetic requirements currently needed to keep the blockchain running. If we are going to scale up blockchain use beyond speculative investing and the trading of images of punks and apes, we must think about long term sustainability and environmental impact. However, that is beyond the scope of this discussion. Just in case academic publishing enters the blockchain space (which I predict it will in the near future to some extent), I have to mention, this market is not speculative, and please do not take this as financial advice. I don’t think any scientist remained in academia for the crazy financial gains. Finally, I minted this editorial, which can be seen on OpenSea, a peer-to-peer marketplace for crypto collectibles and non-fungible tokens: OpenSea Link No, it is not for sale.