...

Evolution towards individuals' control and distributed infrastructure

Image Removed

Use of proxies

The IRMA-to-SAML proxy allows for logging on to SAML SPs with IRMA cards.

...

Separate vertically with subtitles:

Proliferation of proxies

Centralized control (or some better phrase)

Simple Hub & Spoke

Simple Hub & Spoke + AA + Social

Chained proxies

DI4R

Enlarge small yellow notes.

Image Removed

Trust model

Also, compare the trust model to federation/eduGAIN.

...

In the academic peer review process, honest opinions from an expert in the field are crucial.There  There is an inevitable tendency for specialization in science because any modern problems can only be tackled in focused, career-long efforts, so in most subdisciplines, the researchers will have a tendency of knowing each other.This This, however, presents a challenge for the review process. In order to overcome the challenge, in the most widely used review processes, a degree of anonymity is introduced.

• The "Single Blind" process is considered to be a minimum requirement - in this case, the author does not learn the identity of the reviewer. For most journals, this is considered insufficient, since the reviewers still know the identity of the author and they may be biased in one way or the other. Yet, in some cases, especially in less common language there is no true alternative as the content of the article drastically narrows down the set of possible authors, sometimes to one. In these cases the more anonymous methods are disingenuous.
• The "Double Blind" process means that neither the authors learn the identity of the reviewers or the reviewers of the authors. This is the most common type of peer review process. But it still leaves significant control in the hands of the editor, who knows the identity of both, plus, due to the structure of the fields of science, she may personally know all parties and have their own interest. The editor may also know the review styles of particular reviewers based on previous engagements. Therefore it is possible to pick a lenient or a strict reviewer for a given paper for instance.
• The Triple Blind method prevents this problem as the identities of the author, editor and reviewer are unknown to each other. However, this is the hardest to implements, as the editor still needs to be sure about the expertise of the reviewer, moreover, she should also know that the author does not temper with the process by being its own reviewer or bringing in friendly reviewers. At this point, the scientific process becomes somewhat analogous with e-voting systems.
• Furthermore, all three types of blind reviews have a common problem, which is that the work of the reviewer cannot be easily credited to them. This disincentivizes the reviewers from participating and therefore is a drawback for the entire scientific process.

In order to overcome these challenges, an editorial system could issue certificates of editing, certificates of reviewing and certificates of acceptance.

• The certificate of acceptance will contain the name of the author and the metadata of the article, therefore this can be handled as a simple card. 
• The certificate of editing will also contain the name of the author and the edited issue , making it very similar to the certificate of acceptance.
• The certificate of review should also be connected to the person who did the review but it should not reveal what the review entailed. The way for doing that is to be in a large-enough set of people so that the k-anonimity is sufficiently high. Otherwise, based on the exact timing and the fields of interest of a reviewer an author might be able to guess who did their review. Therefore, only larger time ranges (e.g. Year) should be revealed. Smaller journals may want to pool themselves together and issue a certificate that only says that the review was done in one in the journals in question. 

...