What happens when a field built on trust starts to lose it? With fraud and manipulation surging in academia, researchers are turning to blockchain to restore confidence.

“Being able to show you were working on a problem before other peers published is incredibly valuable,” Erik Van Winkle, DeSci Expert and Head of Operations at Bio Protocol, told The Crypto Radio. 

According to Nature, the number of journal article retractions rose from around 1,600 in 2013 to 10,000 in 2023, with most linked to Hindawi journals. The National Library of Medicine noted that many of these retractions involved highly cited researchers.

Brian Wansink, a former Cornell professor, resigned in 2018 after investigations found academic misconduct, including data manipulation and p-hacking – the practice of tweaking data to produce statistically significant results. This led to the retraction of eighteen of his food behavior studies.

Scientific fraud is growing – and visible

A 2025 study by Meho and Akl at the American University of Beirut revealed 14 universities massively inflated publication counts – some up to 1,500% – using what was described as “questionable authorship and affiliation practices”. 

The investigation found that 80 universities more than doubled their research output between 2019 and 2023, far outpacing the global average of 20%, based on data from Elsevier and Web of Science.

In 2024, a Pakistani research group had 10 articles retracted from Wiley’s Food Science & Nutrition journal. The studies, which covered topics like tamarind’s health benefits and aloe vera’s effects on yogurt, were withdrawn after concerns were raised about the peer review process – the system where other researchers evaluate a study before it’s published.

Could blockchain help fix the system?

Some researchers believe it can. By offering a transparent, tamper-resistant way to document the research process, blockchain could help address some of the issues that undermine trust in scientific publishing.

“Blockchain brings the source of reference to the actual action, not just the completed result,” said Jelani Clarke, CBDO at AminoChain and Executive Lead at DeSci World.

Van Winkle echoed that view, arguing that blockchain shouldn’t just record the final product – it should track the entire research journey.

“I’d love to see research linked to blockchain timestamping, not just the final published manuscript,” he said.

That also means separating human work from AI-generated content. “Timestamping with trustworthy provenance, distinct from AI-generated work, will be crucial to future academic submission flows,” Van Winkle said.

Clarke agreed that while blockchain isn’t a cure-all, it can still serve as a powerful transparency tool. “Blockchain won’t solve everything, but as a tool offering detailed transparency, it lets us audit developments openly and granularly.”

He added that this kind of process helps detect mistakes early, preventing researchers from building on a “shaky foundation.”

Protecting originality and tracking ownership

Timestamping individual data points, Clarke said, is essential for building reputation and protecting early contributions.

“That’s crucial for building scientific reputation and tracking contributions, especially when researchers hesitate to share data early for fear of it being stolen,” he said.

Van Winkle pointed to Molecule, a platform aiming to create verifiable records of discovery: “Molecule is building proof of invention, soon part of a larger lab suite – like a Google Drive for scientific research.”

Clarke also noted that traditional peer review often comes too late to be useful during a project. “If mentors and reviewers can view in real-time, it leads to more validated, robust science,” he said.

Transparency vs privacy in blockchain-based science

Since blockchain timestamps and metadata are typically stored on public ledgers, “the data should be handled privately and safely,” Van Winkle noted.

Clarke believes blockchain still lacks the nuance to determine what information should be public and what should remain private.

“Balancing privacy and transparency is case-by-case, depending on human or non-biomedical research, where privacy concerns don’t exist in the latter,” he said.

He also warned of the risks of permanently recording incorrect information, but said the solution lies in documenting the correction process itself.

“You create a new record linked to the previous one. Blockchain allows inherent citations.”

Adoption hurdles and reputational baggage

Despite its potential, Van Winkle said blockchain adoption remains difficult, partly because institutions face high costs in overhauling decades-old systems.

“At times, we also have to fight the reputational aspects of crypto,” he added, noting that blockchain is still often associated with volatility, scams, and speculation.

Clarke, however, argued that blockchain still isn’t ready for widespread scientific use, citing the need for greater flexibility, security, and especially stronger privacy safeguards.

“In industrial science, competing corporations don’t want any data leaks,” he said.

Still, Van Winkle remains optimistic. “Decentralized tech enables streamlined collaboration that could reduce costs,” he said, adding that “we’re just beginning to grasp the value of censorship-less tech, P2P sharing, and guaranteed persistence.”