Integrating Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) Governance Models into OJS 3.x: A Theoretical Framework for Hyper-Transparent Peer Review and Editorial Decision-Making
Article Sidebar
-
Open Journal Systems (OJS 3.x), Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs), hyper-transparent peer review, Institutional Theory, Agency Theory, blockchain, scholarly governance, open academic publishing
Abstract
Digital scholarly publishing faces accumulated challenges centered on editorial bias, opacity of peer review processes, and the concentration of power among a few academic gateways, even with the adoption of open-source platforms such as Open Journal Systems (OJS) version 3.x. This theoretical paper presents a pioneering conceptual framework that explores the potential integration of Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) governance models into the architectural fabric of OJS 3.x, aiming to re-engineer peer review and editorial decision-making processes according to the logic of hyper-transparency. The proposed framework is theoretically grounded in the integration of Institutional Theory and Agency Theory, where the former is employed to analyze normative, mimetic, and coercive pressures shaping journal behavior, while the latter is used to explain problems of information asymmetry among key actors (editors, reviewers, authors, readers). The paper proposes six architectural components for the framework: smart contracts for managing editorial workflows, governance tokens for distributing voting rights, distributed ledgers for documenting reviews, consensus mechanisms for final decisions, tokenized reputation systems, and algorithmic dispute resolution protocols. The discussion reveals that such integration redistributes academic gatekeeping authority, reduces agency costs, and enhances the institutional legitimacy of journals, yet it also generates new tensions related to pseudo-consensus, unsustainable funding, and technical complexity. The paper offers crucial managerial implications for OJS administrators and concludes with a future research agenda that encourages empirical validation of the framework across diverse publishing contexts.
Full text article
References
Bartling, S., & Friesike, S. (2014). Opening science: The evolving guide on how the Internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8
Beck, R., Müller-Bloch, C., & King, J. L. (2018). Governance in the blockchain economy: A framework and research agenda. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19(10), 1020–1034. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00518 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00518
Björk, B.-C. (2019). Open access journal publishing in the business disciplines: A closer look at the low uptake and discipline-specific considerations. Learned Publishing, 32(2), 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1182 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1182
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Edgar, B. D., & Willinsky, J. (2010). A survey of scholarly journals using Open Journal Systems. Scholarly and Research Communication, 1(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.22230/src.2010v1n2a24 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22230/src.2010v1n2a24
Edwards, M. A., & Roy, S. (2017). Academic research in the 21st century: Maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science, 34(1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2016.0223 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2016.0223
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4279003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/258191
Hansson, S., & Polk, M. (2018). Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: The usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact. Research Evaluation, 27(2), 132–144. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvy004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvy004
Hassan, S., & De Filippi, P. (2021). Decentralized Autonomous Organization. Internet Policy Review, 10(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.14763/2021.2.1556 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14763/2021.2.1556
Janowicz, K., Regalia, B., Hitzler, P., Mai, G., Delbecque, S., Fröhlich, M., Martinent, P., & Lazarus, T. (2018). On the prospects of blockchain and distributed ledger technologies for open science and academic publishing. Semantic Web, 9(5), 545–555. https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-180322 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-180322
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
Khanna, S., Ball, J., Alperin, J. P., & Willinsky, J. (2022). Recalibrating the scope of scholarly publishing: A modest step in a vast decolonization process. Quantitative Science Studies, 3(4), 912–930. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00228 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00228
Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLoS ONE, 10(6), e0127502. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502
Mackey, T. K., & Nayyar, G. (2017). A review of existing and emerging digital technologies to combat the global trade in fake medicines. Expert Opinion on Drug Safety, 16(5), 587–602. https://doi.org/10.1080/14740338.2017.1313227 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14740338.2017.1313227
Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, 6, 588. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2
Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). Sage Publications. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/mana.172.0136
Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(4), 178–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/014107680609900414 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/014107680609900414
Spearpoint, M. (2017). A proposed currency system for academic peer review payments using the BlockChain technology. Publications, 5(3), 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications5030019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/publications5030019
Spezi, V., Wakeling, S., Pinfield, S., Creaser, C., Fry, J., & Willett, P. (2017). Open-access mega-journals: The future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? A review. Journal of Documentation, 73(2), 263–283. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2016-0082 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2016-0082
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/258788
Tennant, J. P., Dugan, J. M., Graziotin, D., Jacques, D. C., Waldner, F., Mietchen, D., Elkhatib, Y., Collister, L. B., Pikas, C. K., Crick, T., Masuzzo, P., Caravaggi, A., Berg, D. R., Niemeyer, K. E., Ross-Hellauer, T., Mannheimer, S., Rigling, L., Katz, D. S., Greshake Tzovaras, B., … Colomb, J. (2017). A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000Research, 6, 1151. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.1
Tennant, J. P., & Ross-Hellauer, T. (2020). The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 5(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1
Tenopir, C., Dalton, E., Fish, A., Christian, L., Jones, M., & Smith, M. (2016). What motivates authors of scholarly articles? The importance of journal attributes and potential audience on publication choice. Publications, 4(3), 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications4030022 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/publications4030022
Tenorio-Fornés, A., Tirador, E. P., Sánchez-Ruiz, A. A., & Hassan, S. (2021). Decentralizing science: Towards an interoperable open peer review ecosystem using blockchain. Information Processing & Management, 58(6), 102724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102724 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102724
van Rossum, J. (2017). Blockchain for research: Perspectives on a new paradigm for scholarly communication. Digital Science Report. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.5607778
Willinsky, J. (2006). The access principle: The case for open access to research and scholarship. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1611.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1096/fasebj.20.4.A439
Authors
Copyright (c) 2026 Abdelraouf Samir Abdelraouf Soliman
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.