Source author record

Thomas Miller

Thomas Miller appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Cryptography and Security physics.soc-ph

Catalog footprint

What is connected

2works

2topics

4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2021arXiv

Integrating On-chain and Off-chain Governance for Supply Chain Transparency and Integrity

Integrating on-chain and off-chain data storage for decentralised and distributed information systems, such as blockchain, presents specific challenges for providing transparency of data governance and ensuring data integrity through stakeholder engagement. Current research on blockchain-based supply chains focuses on using on-chain governance rules developed for cryptocurrency blockchains to store some critical data points without designing tailored on-chain governance mechanisms and disclosing off-chain decision-making processes on data governance. In response to this research gap, this paper presents an integrated data governance framework that coordinates supply chain stakeholders with inter-linked on-chain and off-chain governance to disclose on-chain and off-chain rules and decision-making processes for supply chain transparency and integrity. We present a Proof-of-Concept (PoC) of our integrated data governance approach and suggest future research to strengthen scaling up and supply chain-based use cases based on our learnings.

preprint2015arXiv

Innovative Science

Sir, We write as senior scientists about a problem vital to the scientific enterprise and prosperity. Nowadays, funding is a lengthy and complex business. First, universities themselves must approve all proposals for submission. Funding agencies then subject those that survive to peer review, a process by which a few researchers, usually acting anonymously, assess a proposal's chances that it will achieve its goals, is the best value for money, is relevant to a national priority and will impact on a socio-economic problem. Only 25% of proposals received by the funding agencies are funded. These protracted processes force researchers to exploit existing knowledge, severely discourage open-ended studies and are hugely time-consuming. They are also new: before 1970, few researchers wrote proposals. Now they are virtually mandatory.