Peer review of our data was performed by Bryan J. Jones, Ph.D.
Dr. Jones confirmed in detail that:
1) Since the authors chose to remain anonymous, confirm you are not reviewing your own work or affiliated with the Kratom Genome Project.
2) Confirm the genome is Kratom with whatever methods are deemed appropriate. FastQC, BLAST and ITS regions were suggested.
3) Confirm The Kratom Genome Project sequenced X amount more than what is publicly available.
4) Four-day deadline
Or read on the page without leaving this website.
Get our small zip of all review text files via Torrent here (please seed!)
Please seed and tell two friends, this helps keep Kratom free.
That 381kB zip has peer review drafts, the final, the entire email thread between the peer reviewer and the Kratom Genome Project, and a list of the SHA-256 values for each file.
File name: FINAL-peer_review-by-Bryan-J_Jones_PhD.zip
Size: 381kB (389854 bytes)
SHA-256 of the whole zip is:
Value in Namecoin Blockchain:
Registered in block 372762, Nov 29, 2017, at 16:12:37 UTC.
Link on block explorer: https://namecha.in/name/p/Kratom_DNA_Peer_Review1_Nov-29-2017_size_381kB_389854-bytes_Name_FINAL-peer_review-by-Bryan-J_Jones_PhD.zip_SHA256_141CC6BD9199A38EE759620975523E745AAC0017B387C8981C9329976357B4D8-WE_ARE_ALL_SATOSHI_NOW
Here is our genome data that he reviewed.
Here is the previously published NCBI / NIH data he compared it to.
Dr. Jones’ short form CV:
Postdoctoral researcher at the University of Minnesota.
Publication and citation record: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=eOFC7bEAAAAJ&hl=en
Latest publication http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/
His background is in biochemistry with genetics, experience working with NCBI databases and BLAST. He also wrote a program for designing stabilizing mutations that interfaces with BLAST and Entrez.
We held an open call for a subtitle candidate to review the data. Many applied. Rather than wait months or years for normal peer review channels, we paid Dr. Jones for his time (but not to influence his results. He’s a respected science and isn’t going to throw a game).
He got it done in 3 days. And it cost us 1.5 cents US worth of Namecoin coin to irrefutably prove on the Namecoin blockchain that he published the document the day we say here that he did.
Bryan was paid 1/10th of one Bitcoin for his time. Half was paid to him up front, and half upon completion. The total .1 BTC was worth about 800 USD when offered (400 x 2 payments). It was worth nearly 1000 USD a few days later when he turned in his report and was paid the rest. It was enough to get it done quickly.
Some will protest “But it’s not pure to pay money!” Well, there is already money in peer review. The 1000 USD paid to a RAID Reviewer for prompt service is comparable to the 1000 USD document processing fee here: https://f1000research.com/for-authors/article-processing-charges
And that’s just to publish in the most decentralized way near the mainstream. Open-access journal charge around $1,000–$2,000 to publish. Then you have to attract peer reviewers.
We call our new peer review technique RAID Review (Reverse Anon Incentivized Direct Review). We believe RAID Review will probably not go over well with the established community, but is required to get things done when there are forces coming at it from every side.
Even beyond that, RAID Review has the power to streamline discovery and implementation.
For more on RAID Review, please read Fixing what’s wrong in Peer Review w/ RAID Review (Reverse Anon Incentivized Direct Review).
Chemotype certificate for Red Vein Thai kratom sample we sequenced.