 Felly rydyn yn glywed o'r slide, ond rydyn yn cael ei fod yn y ddechrau'r gweithredu, felly ydych chi'n gweithredu o gŷn o'r ddychrau'r gweithredu, felly'r parol y bydd ymlaen i'r ddweud o gweithredu, boeddwn i'n gweithredu, ac mae'n gwybod efallai'n gweithredu ac mae ydych chi'n gweithredu o'r dweud o'r gweithredu, felly byddwch chi'n gweithredu i'r gweithredu. Wylyt Yma yn gweithio y rhan o groes yn sicr y cyfrifiad o'r cylindersau cyfnodol gyda'r canol yw eu cyfrifiadau CVs, yma sy'n iawn i'r Gweithio Media Lab ar y Cyfrifiad Digital Glynyddiant yw ymlaen i gael gynnuniaeth, ac mae yw'r cyfein yn ymgag, mae'n adnoddau'n gweithio amser o'r cyfrifiadau gyrhwm maesfaith cyfrifiadau cyflorau yn ymgyrchfaith, mae'n hwn o'r eirloedd yma, dyfi'r cyfrifiadau cyfrifiadau cyfrifiadau a'r cyfrifiadau cyfrifiadau cyfrifiadau Now, Zargam has done a really great job of talking about how interdisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity can actually kind of be mapped out and visualised. And so one of the things that Out group has done historically is look at, not just interdisciplinarity, but also what you might call anti-disciplinarity. So if you remember Zargam's kind of network node map, if you interpolate between the centres, you might get something that you might call interdisciplinary. But if you look for the voids in between these disciplines, gallwn y gallwn dod o bwysig y dyla, oherwydd oherwydd y gweld o'n gyfer iawn. Rwy'n cyfleoedd yma yng nghymru. Rwy'n ei wneud, ond rydw i'w gwneud ar y website yw'r cyflawn cyrwar o gyfrwyr sydd yma. Fyrdd yna, mae'n ddweud yma o fy nghyfyddiad o'r cwmwys 2020. Rwy'n gweithio'n cyfrwyr cyfrwyr yn y moment, ac mae'n rwyf wedi'n gweld y 19 o'r nefennor. A oedd yn ystod o'r cyfrwyr yma, ychydig i'r cyfrwyr o'r cyfrwyr. gan ymweliad y prosiectur wedi'i gweithio'n gweithio, yn de Chryw Llywodraeth ar eu prosiectur, a gweithio yng technical i gyd yn ymgyrch, bydd yn fawr cymdeithasol i'r Cymru, a'r prosiectur yn cyfyniadau yn y rheswedd y dyfodol yn cyfanydd i'r cyfnod yma. Fy hoffi'r fawr o'r fawr o'r gweithio, roeddwn i'r bwysig ar y, roeddwn i'r fawr o'r bwysig oedd yr audience pan fyddwyr dychydig ymlaen i'r ystyried ar gyfer ddweud ym Llyfrgellol am y cyfnodol. Yma, yw'r M.I.T. Ac mae'n gweld i'n gweld i'n gweld i'na, mae'n amlwg deoedd, ac mae'r pwysig ymweld i'n amlwg. Dwi'n dod yn ymlaen i'r newid, yn gweithio ar y cyfriforol yn ei gweithio. Ond mae'n gweld i'n gweld i'n gweld i'n gweld i'n gweld i'n gweld i'n gweld i'n gweld i'n gweld i'n gweld i'n gweld i'n gweld i'n gweld. Yn y gwybod, y gwybod y cymorth oedd yn ymdweithio ar y cwmfren. Yn y cwmfren, ychydig yw'r cyfnod yn y ddweud. Yn y cymorth, yw'r cyfnod. Yn y cymorth, yw'r cyfnod. Yn y cymorth, yw'r cymorth, yw'r cymorth yn y context i'r sefyd, yn y llangwyr. Yn y cymorth, yw'r cyfnod, ond mae'n gweithio enghreifft. Mae'n gwybod, ymdweithio, mae'n gweithio cwmfren. Yn y cymorth, yw'r cyflwynt yn y gazig, yw'r cyllidydd gyda'r cyfrifennu cyflwyddurau ymddir i'r cyfrifennu cymorth, yw'r cyfrifennu cyfrifennu cyfrifennu cyfrifennu. Dyna'r bod yn ei ddweud i, ddweud, とb ar gwaith o'r cyfrifennu. Yn gweithio, mae hi'n gweithio i'r ddefnyddiadau i ymddir iawn i'r geithig o'r gwneud. Yn y cymorth, yw'n gweithio'r cyfrifennu cyfrifennu cyfrifennu cyfrifennu cyfrifennu. why'd we like to find ways that we can reduce bits of information down? We can use conceptual models like network graphs or we can use models like stacks of layers to try to engage in some differential discretisation, try to understand the similarities and differences between things, or try to define terms. So here is a conference called Blockchain for Science. If I was to randomly poll 10 people in the audience and ask for your 10-word definition of a blockchain, I'd probably get at least five or six different answers. Rydyn ni'n ymweld i gael ar yr oedd ymddygu cyfnodd, cyfnodd, cyfnodd, cyd-gwysig, cyd-gwysig, cyd-gwysig, cyd-gwysig, cyd-gwysig. Rydyn ni'n helpu ddweud i gyd-gwysig o'r llens zeithio. Felly, sy'n gofio'r gweithio'n rhoi ar y deall. Felly, yn rhan o'i bod, cyd-gwysig o'r rhan o bwysig, rydyn ni'n gyffrwysig, mae'r gŵl yn oed yn ysgrffwr ymlaer o'r ffordd, Where no subset of participants of the network are prevented from entering transactions into the record. Or you might say the sensitive resistance is primarily a protocol there for the one on where no type of transaction is prevented from entering the network with the ledger. Anyway you can take this reducto ad absurdum to this thing that I call the ontological metastack where you might see how different disciplines are related and how they link together ac mae'r dynnal ganddiannau bod hwn yn ddiwedd, dwi'n ganddiannau pseud 명od mewn gwirio. Felly, rhai g amendments, mae'r ff�fyrdd o'r ddechrau'n gofio'r ydy, oedd adaeladau'r canfodd, os gallwn ni'n gwirio'n gwirio, mae'n rhaid i'n gweithio, mae rhaid i diaf yn gweithio yn gwirio'n dod o gyda, yn byw'r cyfleidio, mae'n ei wneud o'r ddigon â'r dynnal. A dyna'n gofio'r penderfyn o siarad yn gwirio'n gwirio'n gwirio'n gwirio. 350 yno ar y cyfnodd rhan ffordd oedd y llyfrwyllolion yn ynglyn? Gwiyllwch gyda hynny'n symud pethol reliolol ar y llyfrwyllolion. Felly ym ymgyrch erbyn yn unig fathigtu a cynnig y llyfrwyllolion. Mae yr rhywf yn ymgyrch iawn i ddweud ym gilydd hwn, ein gerson yw ddiddoriad o'r sgol i dda. Mae'r ddysgu ymddun pethau mawr yn gweithio fod yn amlwgol, George Gabriel Stokes, yw'r Secretary of the Royal Society, he was the single peer reviewer for everything that came into the Royal Society on every topic. So this is actually coming back to that metastack thing. People were still natural philosophers and we were looking at spanning across disciplines. As time has gone on, the proliferation of journals has been driven by the explosion of scholarly guilds and societies and also by commercial publishers. We now have this situation where we have untold, countless numbers of journals with all kinds of different publishing models, scholarly models, rights, relationships with authors and so on. So you could say that we had a question about preprints earlier. So this is an interesting one where people are divided over whether we should be putting work in an interim state or an unreviewed state in staging servers like preprint servers, archive and eprint, or whether that invalidates the novelty of the research. In fact, it's already been published in a way. You see some journals penalising people that put things on preprint servers and you see others which encourage it. We're encouraging it because you can stop the flow of information. That seems kind of crazy. But you can do some kind of version controlling. So you could say a certain version of this paper gets submitted for review and then that particular one is the version which gets verified. So imagine then a protocol paper, my perfect unicorn proof of stake paper, and I submit it to a journal and then I change it. And so one version has passed the review, but I've changed it, so we have to also be careful with things like that. So people also worry about over-metricisation, things like journal impact factors, which have turned into these kind of... I don't know how it is in Germany. I'm not very schooled in how things work in Germany, but certainly in the UK and the US, people have gone crazy over metricisation of teaching impact factors, local intro like intro university of respect impact factors, and even this kind of journal page rank index, JIFs and things like that. And they seem kind of crazy. Some people have very different opinions about peer review. Some people say peer review is the worst system apart from all the others. Like people say about democracy being the worst governance system apart from all the others. Other people say that peer review is completely broken. It doesn't scale. You have all these human bias issues. But career-compatible with different fields are not career-compatible in terms of their review processes, in terms of the incentives to engage in interdisciplinary research and so on. Open access, APCs, we had a little comment about that earlier. So some people look at open access and think that this is like a way that you can kind of engage in unethical or scammy behaviour. I guess some of you just have a straw poll if you don't mind. Hands up if you've received an unsolicited email or a message on a platform or directly to you, asking if you'd like a piece of work that's on archive or research gate, if you'd like a book to be published that you've put online, does everyone receive those emails? Okay, quite a few. Double figures. All right. Yeah, I also received one of those recently. At first I fell for it. I was like, oh, that must be how. I'm a great author. And then I looked up the company. Actually, I think they're German. I can't remember the name, but I'll have to look it up. And then I surely found out that sure they will print the thing for you, but they'll make you buy a bunch of the first copies. And this is kind of like a bonding curve, right? You buy the first few copies. It's super expensive. And then other people get the right benefits of the economies of scale. So there's all kinds of weird, shady models going on at the moment. Rights transfer. We had a comment about that already, which is great. So I've not got much time to talk about it at the end of the talk, but one of the things we're very keen on and this is something I'm pushing for is we're dealing in the business of open source research. So if you look at the current system, blockchain stuff, it's inherently at its very root. This is a technology which doesn't require these borders of intellectual property and so on. And so we've persuaded MIT Press to do, and they also have like a non-profit mission-driven scholarly publishers. They're not really that, you know, they have predatory tendencies, but we've asked them to take non-exclusive licenses to authors' works or to authors retain rights because otherwise. Then the power is centralising back to us and the influence, and we don't want that. Okay, publisher illigably, I think we probably all know what that means. You know, we've got like nature down the road and springer and Elsevier, so yes. And those are the things, the ones in blue are the things that we're attempting to address with crypto-economic systems. So we recently had a conference over in Boston a few weeks ago. Some people in the room made the long journey over there, so we're very grateful for that. So someone asked me to give a very brief wrap-up. So we had about 225 attendees, 60 or so speakers. This is people from law and regulation of policy and cryptography and distributed systems and complexity. Quite a range of people, people from like the real Bitcoin world, people from the BFT protocols, Bitcoin boils the oceans world. So trying to get all these people together and build a big tent and have them pick at each other essentially. In a scholarly sense, I suppose. And so we tried to bring practitioners and academics together. We tried to kind of squash people together that may not share the same venue or have these conversations. So that's what we tried to do. There's a little sample of some of the people that spoke and there's plenty of information, all the videos on the digital currency initiative, YouTube channel if you would like to watch those. 61 videos, I believe. And yes, oh, an advert. Yes, for our journal. So it's diamond open access. That was a point that came up earlier. And so you have these different kind of variations or different tiers of how open access is, which to me is a bit of a cop out. For me, open access should map fairly closely on to open source or the most open creative commons licenses. And so diamond open access or aka platinum open access basically represents there's no paywalls. We're not charging people to read the articles or ABCs. We're not charging authors to submit articles. So we're bearing those costs. And more on that later as we enter a fundraising drive. So some stuff about the journal. So we've got two editors-in-chief, Nehan Arula, who's the director of the digital currency initiative and Andrew Miller, who's well known for his work in practice across all kinds of projects and networks. And he's an assistant professor at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign. We have an advisory board. Now a lot of these names are probably quite familiar to you because Shafiq Al-Wassaf with the touring medal for zero knowledge proofs, Dampenay, who does all the crypto stuff. Adalia Malkhi is the lead researcher in Calibra, computer scientist at Princeton, economist at Chicago Booth and so on. And the reason we've got this perhaps slightly archaic looking structure to the journal is we're trying to make this thing interoperable and backwards compatible with both the existing silo disciplines and the traditional academic structure. We need this thing to be perceived as credible and legible in order to help us get this thing off the ground and get it going. That's the idea. And then we will slowly shift people outside of their comfort zones. So that's the idea here. So let's talk about interdisciplinarity. This is a great image from a bioinformatics lab at Harvard, like a really nice one. I want somebody to make something like this for me. So if you're cool, if you're good at drawing and you want a project, come and see me. So this is something that we're worried about. We're worried about the gravity well of being an MIT project. So I work with the MIT Digital Financial Initiative. One of the editors-in-chief is from MIT. The majority of the editorial board is outside. One of the other editor-in-chief is outside. The majority of the review committee is outside. So we're trying to build a piece of scholarly infrastructure for the commons. We're trying not to make this like an all singing and all dancing MIT show. So this is meant to be an inclusive project initiative. So if you have any questions or queries or comments or you want to point cool stuff out that's going on that I might not be aware of, please reach out. Okay, so interdisciplinary challenges. And this is a tough one. It's tough to kind of, especially in academia, where everything is very structured in a very similar way for a very long time. You have a school of economics. You have a law school. You have a computer science faculty and so on. And so these structures, you can kind of think of them as ladders, ladders for career progression. And so professors and academics will be climbing the ladder in their particular tower. And that's where the incentives are aligned, aligned for them to kind of climb linearly. And not so much laterally with this kind of interdisciplinary work. So we have to find ways that we can make this thing incentive compatible with academics. Otherwise, you run the risk that the only people that can really engage in this kind of risky, discipline of research in universities are the people that already have tenure. They already have their job stability or they already have their permanent positions, as you might call them in Europe. So that's one thing. And the other thing is that the publication tradition is very, really a lot. So in law, the raw reviews are run by students. In economics, if you want to be an econ professor in a top university, especially in the States, you need to publish in one of the monolithic half dozen journals which takes years to get into. And in computer science, more people run through the conference publication with proceedings pathway because it's faster and reflects a faster-moving field. So there's all these kinds of different things that we have to join up. And we also have the tension between expert culture and what I'd like to think of as epistemic trespassing, which, you know, like Zago and I are particularly guilty of this. And so we're jumping between fields. But those things aren't necessarily coherent with this linear academic career structure. So peer review. Peer review is also hard to do in an interdisciplinary way. So imagine a paper that falls between two disciplines. You would need people that are knowledgeable in those fields and ideally people with some overlap to also be able to disentangle and contextualise that work. Yes, practice and theory interact in different ways across different fields. So one of the big things about cryptocurrency is most of the key work, the foundational work was just dropped by anonymous people on random PDF servers. So that's very much the upside down backwards to the way that the academy does things. And so how do we integrate all of these different things together? And one of the ways we'd like to do that is by using an open peer review model. And so this is something that was touched on a little bit earlier. So rather than the reviews getting done and then being used to assess whether something is published or not and then those reviews are basically consigned to the dustbin of history and never seen, we'd like to treat the reviewer's attention as a scarce and valuable resource. And the people, the subject specialists that are disentangling this work, we can use the artefacts created from the review process and publish those alongside the work itself. So that's what we're intending to do. So please hit me up if you have any ideas about that. And we want to encourage transparency as to research. We want to set higher standards and we want to encourage debate about these things, which I think is a little bit missing at the moment. So we have this idea which I'll skip through the rest just to focus on this nice idea that we've got of peer-to-peer review. So the idea being that we can also go out looking for papers to review. So like we said, like Nakamato 2008, nobody peer reviewed that. There's areas in the maths of the time distribution of blocks mining. And that was found by mathematicians much later. And you could argue that some of these other discrepancies or interesting edge cases might be better observed if they went through a kind of a human verification process. So Jason Potts was touched on earlier. He has this interesting work with Eleanor Rennie from a few years ago about economic models of journals as clubs where you can think of these as mapping onto guilds and being rivalries in some sense, but the good's being unbounded. I want to show you very briefly this is a petri-net flow model of a decentralized technology token journal which Toege and Stakebox Guys and Andrew Lewis Pyer have been working on to have much time. So I will just skip through these bits that I stole from them. Epidemia and practice, I think we said some of this. There's huge structural problems in universities at the moment. Anybody that watches the news or is involved in working in universities or research will be aware of that. And I think we should, yes, so this is a point, you made a point earlier about 60s and 70s and academic complaining. This is from 7th century BC and we're complaining about doing academic service. So it's an ongoing problem. So yes, open access, I think we've basically covered this. We just have to be careful that we don't fall into the trap of being perceived as predatory or fake or ethical journals. And that's pretty much it. Here's some questions to help me answer them. Thanks very much. Coming from a sort of institution like MIT and you showed a bunch of people and even with the interdisciplinary focus there's a question of whether the sort of core editors and reviewers are going to bring a lot of disciplinary bias. And so how in this particular journal does the team sort of combat or at least recognise their own sort of biases coming from their own fields? Yeah, this is tough because in some ways we have bias. Some biases that we do acknowledge in ourselves and some that we don't. Unknowns and unknown unknowns I suppose you could say. So one of the things we're trying to do is setting up these events, bringing people together and briefing the review committees by constructing them very carefully. We're trying to build the notion and the priority of interdisciplinary into the review process. So we're going to be sending out instructions for the reviewers quite soon where we're trying to frame this. And one of the things you can think about imagine a paper that falls between cryptography and economics and a limited set of people that are able to sufficiently overlap on those two disciplines. But you may be able to find people that can stitch together the tapestry independently. That may require a bit more assistance from the editorial team in terms of producing this review summary. So I think that's something that we've got to bear in mind. Good question. So I have a question about open and pure review. So I have worked in my career for for-profit companies and I have had papers published as researcher and I've had papers specifically rejected because I worked for a for-profit company. So explain to me how a more open-pure review would help me. That is a good question. So were these papers that you submitted, were they double-blinded or were they not double-blinded? No, no, no, they were not double-blinded. The challenge was that the reviewers said this research is far as good. It's well written. It's not exactly where you came from. We're afraid that this person is really just going to come into a marketing presentation because they work for X company. So it's about presentation, about a paper for submission then a presentation rule. The first thing is blinding. So it's something I didn't really touch on but we're doing double or triple blinding depending on how you define that where the identity of the author is not known to the reviewer or not known to each other until a certain stage. So that would minimise this conflict of interest situation. Perceived potential conflict of interest. But this is one of the areas that we're working on the COI thing right now. Yes, it's right up there. We're working on this conflict of interest situation now because even harder with cryptocurrencies and so on because the incentives are that much magnified. So these are not easy questions to answer but there is a bias towards academics looking at industry and thinking it's going to devolve into a sales presentation. So I would say if you're looking for a good example of how not to do that look at what's argued about because he puts the research front in centre so he's really talking about that rather than why implications or how it breaks down as a business process. Great, thank you. Thanks.