highly-cited economic article from 2015<\/a>, that follows the accepted approaches of rigor, published within a high-quality journal, found that the \u201clong-term fundamental value (of bitcoin) is not statistically different from zero.\u201d Given that Bitcoin started 2015 at around $318 and ended the year at $430 and has risen dramatically since this time, one can only imagine the potential \u201csaltiness\u201d of the academics who presented these findings and how this may have affected their long-term view of and research journey in Bitcoin.<\/p>\nHow Academics Can Improve On Bitcoin Research<\/h2>\n
While the idea of establishing new research journals focused upon Bitcoin are a worthy way forward, academic journals take time to develop reputations and academics within fields tend not to stray far from the sources they are comfortable with. Academics are also incentivized to publish within established journals by linking research outputs to career progression, meaning a new journal may not be an avenue for development in the short term. <\/p>\n
I am a great fan of the Bitcoin Policy Institute, which does invaluable work promoting research and advocacy to improve understanding on Bitcoin, but it can only have so many members with its current level of funding (without considering the issues associated with greatly-increasing membership). This means that increasing the membership of such institutions may also not be the best avenue for development. <\/p>\n
To reflect on these potential issues, my three suggestions for those working in academia are: Firstly, to identify ways of conducting academic and rigorous research from the perspective of their area of knowledge to be published within journals related to their own discipline. Secondly, allocate resources specifically for responding to published research that is inaccurate, incomplete and biased, through communication with the editorial boards of the respective journal. Thirdly, include Bitcoin within the topics they are willing to review papers on, thus helping prevent articles that inaccurately present views of Bitcoin from being published. Through this process, as more academics enter the field, they will be able to benefit from robust academic debates, with high standards they can aspire to, hopefully allowing themselves to write work that contributes to the scientific understanding of Bitcoin.<\/p>\n
These suggestions are unlikely to solve the bias presented by journalists or politicians, but I believe they represent a way to improve the academic foundations of Bitcoin understanding. Academics pursue research with the aim of unearthing new knowledge and understanding, on the journey to establishing new or refining existing truths, that build upon the scientific methods that underpins the modern world. Unless this foundation is established, and people aiming for quick academic wins are prevented from publishing their work, journalists and politicians will continue finding sources that are aligned with their views on catastrophizing the impact of Bitcoin. If journalists and politicians are unable to draw from low grade \u201cresearch\u201d that does not stand the test of critical review, they will not be able to distribute these views to the general public. While this may not solve the problem, it might just be able to move the debate in the right direction, and allow academics to be the critical voices that are underpinned by scientific rigor. If the general public\u2019s view of Bitcoin is not misinformed, there is one less barrier to overcome in the process of orange pilling a future Bitcoiner.<\/p>\n
Members of academia are at times regarded as conducting their research from ivory towers that have only limited impact on practice or the lives of everyday people, but the OSTP\u2019s recent report and wider academic literature shows that the increasing interest in Bitcoin is magnifying the impact of Bitcoin-related research. Unless action is taken to ensure the high standards of academia are maintained within research related to Bitcoin, not only will the progress of Bitcoin be slowed, but the reputation and standing of academic research more widely will be damaged. <\/p>\n
This leaves me in a position where I would like to provide a message to academics who use low quality or biased data within their work and reviewers who do not check the sources that are being drawn from. As an academic myself, my message is: Shame on you. As a Bitcoiner, my message cannot be published, but believe me, it is from the heart and does not pull punches. <\/p>\n
This is a guest post by Rupert Matthews. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.<\/em><\/p>\n