https://doi.org/10.37815/rte.v37nE1.1339

Original articles

Blockchain-based Application for a
Sustainable University: Systematic Review and UCE-Camp Proposal
for the Academic Processes of Higher Education
Institutions

Aplicación basada
en Blockchain para una Universidad Sostenible:
Revisión Sistemática y Propuesta UCE-Camp
para los Procesos
Académicos de Educación Superior

Patricia
Jimbo Santana1 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7432-1622, Mario Morales Morales1 https://orcid. org/0000-0002-7493-8072, Mónica Jimbo
Santana1 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3948-9507, Santiago Morales Cardoso1 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3833-9654, Silvio Alejandro Toscano
Vizcaíno1 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6571-5627

1Universidad Central del Ecuador, Quito,
Ecuador

Sent:

2025/06/16

Accepted:

2025/08/20

Published:

2025/10/15

prj. [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]

Esta
obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate the potential of blockchain
technology in higher education, with a particular focus on its benefits and challenges in academic processes. A systematic literature review was conducted,
analyzing 42 key studies selected from a total of 533 academic publications
over the past six years. The results indicate that blockchain applications are
primarily concentrated in secure certificate issuance, the enhancement of teaching and learning
environments, and the transparent management of academic credits
and scholarships. The main
contribution of this research is the presentation of a comprehensive and up-to-date overview
of blockchain integration in the educational domain. Furthermore, it
introduces the UCE-Camp model as a sustainable framework designed to improve
the efficiency, transparency, and quality of academic
operations. The study also identifies existing gaps and challenges, outlining
future research directions for the broader adoption of blockchain in
higher education.

Keywords: blockchain, academic
process, e-government, higher education, issuance of academic

certificates, sustainability.

Resumen

Esta investigación tiene como objetivo
analizar el potencial
de la tecnología blockchain
en la educación superior, enfocándose en sus beneficios y
desafíos dentro de los procesos académicos. Se realizó una
revisión sistemática de literatura, se examinaron 42 estudios
relevantes seleccionados entre 533 publicaciones académicas de los
últimos seis años. Los hallazgos
revelan que las principales aplicaciones de blockchain se centran en la emisión segura de certificados, la mejora de los entornos
de enseñanza-aprendizaje y la gestión transparente de créditos y becas. Como principal contribución, el estudio ofrece una visión integral y actualizada
sobre el uso de blockchain en el ámbito educativo, y propone el
modelo UCE-Camp como una
solución sostenible para optimizar la eficiencia, transparencia y
calidad de los procesos académicos. Además, se identifican brechas y desafíos que abren nuevas líneas de investigación
para su implementación futura.

Palabras clave: cadenas
de bloques, proceso académico, gobierno electrónico,
educación superior, emisión de certificados académicos,
sostenibilidad.

Introduction

Several studies on blockchain-based technology (BCT) have explored prototypes, case studies, and theoretical frameworks across diverse sectors, including supply chain management,
business, healthcare, energy, utilities, e-government, Internet of
Things (IoT), security and privacy, data management, and—importantly—education. These domains represent key research
trends as identified by Casino, Dasaklis, & Patsakis (2019) and
Higinio Mora et al. (2021).

In
the educational sector,
blockchain initiatives remain in an early developmental stage but hold significant potential to transform student information systems.
The primary areas of
application include certification management, credit and commission transfers, tracking of skills and learning outcomes, professional
capability assessment, collaborative learning environments, digital
tutoring, and evaluation processes (Rojas, Gayoso
Martínez, & Queiruga- Dios, 2020). Additional
use cases involve incentive-based learning programs and the verification
of educational content authenticity.

The integration of blockchain in
education —particularly through ePortfolios— has garnered
increasing attention in academic literature. Trejo (2019) highlights that
ePortfolios foster active learning and digital competence, while blockchain’s
decentralized and secure architecture enhances transparency and reliability in
educational data management (Cortés, Pinto, & Atrio, 2015). Furthermore, blockchain facilitates
interoperability among institutions, enabling seamless exchange of credentials
and academic records.

Blockchain-based ePortfolios also address challenges in managing roles
and resources within modern educational systems. Tinoco et al. (2023) demonstrate the utility of their approach
in issuing and verifying academic credentials and communicating
competencies. Blockchain emerges as a robust solution for secure information
processing and storage, mitigating risks such as plagiarism and inefficient
resource management.

Despite its promise, blockchain adoption in education faces notable limitations. Oyelere et al. (2020) report limited
awareness and usage of blockchain within the academic
community, indicating a lack of widespread understanding and adoption. Additionally, as an emerging and relatively untested technology, blockchain suffers from the absence of standardized frameworks,
which may lead to security vulnerabilities, hacking risks, and
unintended data exposure.

These limitations underscore the importance of adequate preparation and technological
literacy to ensure successful implementation. Tinoco et al. (2023) identify key
challenges in higher education that blockchain seeks
to address, including credential verification—critical in combating academic fraud—and
secure, permanent storage of academic records and learning achievements
(Rivera-Vargas, 2020).

The
significance of this study lies in its contribution to innovation and improvement of academic processes in higher education institutions (HEIs). It proposes a tailored model—UCE-
Camp—that aligns with the specific
needs and operational characteristics of universities, aiming
to facilitate effective
integration of blockchain. This technology offers distinct advantages that support institutional sustainability, such as enhanced
security, transparency, and efficiency in data management.

To support this proposal, a systematic literature review was conducted, analyzing studies published
between 2018 and 2024 that explore blockchain-based applications, methods, or
frameworks within HEI-managed academic processes.

This paper provides a comprehensive
overview of blockchain technology and its connection to academic processes,
followed by a detailed explanation of the methodology applied in conducting
a systematic literature review. The subsequent section presents the analysis
of the reviewed literature and the results
obtained. These findings
are then discussed in light of the challenges that must be addressed to enable broader adoption of this technology within higher
education institutions. Additionally, the UCE-Camp proposal is
introduced as a sustainable model for the university. The paper concludes by summarizing the main insights and
offering recommendations for future research.

Blockchain and Academic Processes

Blockchain, also known as distributed ledger technology, is recognized as a foundational innovation (Conti, Sandeep, Lal, & Ruj, 2018) that underpins the development of cryptocurrencies and virtual currencies by enabling data immutability and integrity (H. Mora, Morales-Morales, Pujol-López, & Mollá-Sirvent, 2021). It operates
by storing electronic records in a distributed,
immutable, and verifiable database accessible to all computers within the network—referred to as
nodes—which are responsible for validating transactions and thereby replacing the function of a
centralized authority (Mohan, 2019).

A notable feature of blockchain
technology is its resistance to manipulation, as it eliminates the need for a
central entity to authorize or restrict transactions (Swan, 2018). This decentralized structure addresses the
issue of trust among market participants and ensures the integrity and
transparency of transactions (Alnafrah & Mouselli, 2021).

Transactions are recorded chronologically in the ledger,
and as the chain expands, the difficulty of falsification
increases (Tahar, Hammi, Bellot, & Serhrouchni, 2018). Nodes aggregate
transactions into blocks and validate their inclusion in the chain through
consensus mechanisms—cryptographic algorithms designed to ensure
agreement across the network (Zhang & Lee, 2020).

Blockchain
platforms can be tailored to specific purposes through the integration of smart
contracts, which are fundamental components that
inherit the blockchain immutability. Smart contracts facilitate automatic
execution of predefined instructions based on the logic agreed upon by
participants, eliminating the need for trusted intermediaries (Lucas Palma,
Gomes, Vigil, & Martina, 2019).

The evolution of blockchain
technology has progressed through multiple stages, as illustrated by Alammary et al. (2019) and Chen,
Xu, Lu, &
Chen (2018) in Figure 1. At its most
advanced stage, blockchain applications have been deployed across
various sectors, including government, healthcare, and
education.

Figure 1

Evolution of Blockchain Technology

Higher education is currently situated within a context of increasing internationalization and intense global
competition, necessitating greater efficiency in institutional processes—
particularly in the management of academic records (Van Damme, 2001). Within this framework,
several challenges persist, including student authentication, credential
verification, degree issuance, and the transfer of academic information across institutions. These issues often stem
from paper-based systems, which introduce
vulnerabilities such as susceptibility to manipulation, increased
verification burdens, and a higher demand for human resources (Alnafrah & Mouselli,
2021). Higher education institutions (HEIs) frequently rely on physical
documentation and centralized storage methods, rendering them vulnerable to
fraud (Rane, Singh, Singh, & Amarsinh, 2020). Moreover, traditional systems exhibit
limitations in terms
of auditability and external verification (Badr,
Rafferty, Mahmoud, Elgazzar, & Hung, 2019).

The rapid advancement of digital
technologies has both amplified opportunities and increased risks. One notable
concern is the increased ease with which academic fraud can be committed. In
educational settings, it is possible to falsify student records, such as
registering a course as completed when the requirements have not been met
(Lutfiani, Apriani, Nabila, & Juniar,
2022). Document forgery—including academic records and certificates issued by HEIs—
can negatively impact organizations that unknowingly admit individuals lacking
the necessary qualifications (Rane et al., 2020). According
to Forbes, fraudulent academic documentation is estimated to cause global damages of approximately USD 7 billion
annually, underscoring the urgency for technological solutions. This context has accelerated interest in
blockchain-based technology (BCT), which holds the potential to transform how
universities manage academic resources (Rustemi, Dalipi, Atanasovski, &
Risteski, 2023).

Given these challenges, universities must align their digital, institutional, and administrative infrastructures with emerging technologies. Several studies suggest that blockchain
offers substantial benefits
across various domains
due to its inherent properties—immutability, fault
tolerance, decentralization, and auditability (Turkanović, Hölbl,
Košič, Heričko, & Kamišalić, 2018).
Specifically, BCT can enhance fraud detection in academic institutions,

not only in certificate verification but across all
academic records (Lutfiani et al., 2022). Its implementation may lead to
improved educational outcomes, streamlined administrative procedures, and
greater institutional transparency (Rustemi et al., 2023).

In the context of higher education,
various blockchain-based solutions have been proposed. These will be examined in detail in the following section, which presents
the findings of a systematic
literature review conducted by the authors.

Methodology

This study addresses the set
objectives through a systematic literature review,
which involves a series of activities related to the identification,
evaluation, and interpretation of a topic of interest,
providing a framework
for the research. To achieve
this, the method proposed
by Kitchenham (2014) define the following stages:

•
Planning: Identify needs,
define relevant databases, and determine key search terms.

•
Execution: Determine inclusion/exclusion criteria and
manually add relevant
studies.

•
Presentation: Summarize and present select studies.

During the planning phase, this
research focused on two core concepts: blockchain and academic processes. These concepts were combined to form
primary search keywords. The selected databases for the literature review included Google
Scholar, ScienceDirect, IEEE Xplore, and arXiv.

The choice of these databases is
justified by their complementary strengths and broad coverage across scientific
and technical disciplines. Google Scholar provides a multidisciplinary
search capability, enabling access to a wide range of academic sources, including peer-reviewed
articles. Its citation
tracking feature also facilitates the identification of influential and emerging
works. ScienceDirect, managed
by Elsevier—one of the world’s leading scientific publishers— offers access to
high-quality, peer-reviewed research that is recognized within the academic
community. IEEE Xplore is essential for engineering and technology-related studies,
granting exclusive access to conference proceedings and publications from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). Lastly,
arXiv serves as a repository for preprints, allowing
early access to cutting-edge research prior to formal publication, which
is critical for capturing the latest trends and developments.

In the execution phase, the criteria defined during the planning stage were systematically
applied. The review process was structured through a series of iterations, incorporating inclusion and exclusion criteria as follows: (i) inclusion of journal articles and book chapters, (ii) screening of titles and abstracts, and (iii) full-text review of selected articles. Additionally, relevant studies were
incorporated using the snowballing method as proposed by Wohlin (2014).

The limitations of this study include the restriction to English-language publications and the use of only four academic digital
databases. Within these
sources, only journal
articles and book chapters
published between 2018 and 2024 were considered. A summary of the
applied criteria is presented schematically in Table 1.

Table 1

Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria

TYPE
OF CRITERION

DESCRIPTION OF CRITERION

Inclusion

Search criteria:

“blockchain” AND “Academic processes” “Higher
education” AND “blockchain” “academic” AND
“blockchain”

Inclusion

Journal articles and book chapter

Inclusion

Articles in English language only

Inclusion

Publications from
2018 to 2024

Exclusion

Abstract does
not provide relevant information

Exclusion

Duplicate articles

Exclusion

Articles in another language

The search criteria for this systematic review were carefully defined to include key terms such as
“blockchain,” “academic processes,” “higher
education,” and “academic,” ensuring a focused and comprehensive exploration of blockchain’s role within the academic domain.
This strategic approach enabled broad coverage of relevant literature
published between 2018 and 2024. The rationale for conducting a systematic
review of scientific articles lies in the rapid technological advancements in
blockchain, its growing adoption in educational contexts, and the need to
examine the most current trends shaping its implementation.

This methodology ensures that the
proposed model is grounded in contemporary practices and knowledge, which are essential
for the sustainable and autonomous management of higher education institutions. The review
maintains its rigor and relevance by selecting only peer-reviewed journal
articles and book chapters written in the English language. Non- relevant
abstracts, duplicate entries, and non-English publications were excluded to
preserve methodological integrity and avoid information overload or selection
bias. The deliberate omission of additional search terms was intended to
maintain the specificity of the review, ensuring that the research remains sharply
aligned with its core objectives and is not diluted by peripheral data. This balance between
inclusion and exclusion is critical to conducting
a systematic review that is both thorough and impartial, effectively addressing
the research questions without compromising clarity.

Furthermore, inclusion criteria were
established for selecting studies, emphasizing thematic relevance,
methodological rigor, recency, academic impact, and diversity of perspectives.
These criteria ensure that the selected works make a meaningful contribution to
the
analysis of blockchain applications in higher education, providing a robust and representative
foundation for the development of this study.

To guide the scope and direction of
the research, a set of research questions was formulated in alignment with the study’s overarching objective. The following questions
were defined:

•
What relevant works and research have been conducted on blockchain applied in the

academic and
higher education field?

•
What are the benefits and
challenges associated with implementing blockchain in academic processes in
higher education institutions?

Figure 2 illustrates the extraction process
and the different
results obtained in each

iteration.

Figure 2

Document Extraction Scheme

This methodological approach ensures that the selected studies are directly relevant to the intersection of blockchain technology and higher education, thereby upholding the quality and relevance of the review.
The exclusion of duplicate entries
and the restriction to recent, English- language publications from 2018
to 2024 enhance the timeliness and contextual accuracy of the sample.
Additionally, the removal of non-relevant abstracts minimizes bias and prevents
information overload.

Although the final sample size is
relatively small, each article offers substantial contributions to the existing
body of knowledge, enabling a comprehensive and up-to-date understanding of the
topic. The representativeness of the selected studies ensures alignment with the research
questions, resulting in a systematic review that is both methodologically sound and analytically robust. This facilitates a nuanced and meaningful examination of the literature.

In
the presentation phase, the findings
are synthesized and categorized according
to the typology proposed by Alammary,
Alhazmi, Almasri, &
Gillani (2019). A detailed analysis of these results is
provided in Section 4.

Literature Review

In this study, a total of 42
scientific articles and book chapters directly related to the proposed objectives have been analyzed.
These research works describe concepts,
case studies, or proposals related to Blockchain Technology (BCT) within
academic contexts, especially in higher education institutions. Table 2 presents the most relevant findings of each study, classified
according to the typology described by Alammary et al.(2019).

Table 2

Summary of relevant
findings

TYPE
OF STUDY

REFERENCE

RELEVANT FINDINGS

Academic qualifications

management

(Awaji & Solaiman, 2022)

Describes a BCT-based system that generates a
verifiable record of achievements
of higher education students in a way that accelerates the authentication and validation process of
such certificates.

Copyright management

(Mohan, 2019)

Proposes the use of a centralized blockchain
(permissioned blockchain) that
incorporates incentive structures for readers and reviewers in academia as a solution to mitigate
misconduct in scientific production. It
encompasses a reputation system and proof of value as fundamental components of the blockchain.

Learning Outcomes Management

(Nousias, Tsakalidis, Michoulis, Petridou,
& Vergidis, 2022)

Designs a verification system called VerDe (Verified
Degrees) based on BCT and BPMN
technology, which enables secure registration of academic qualifications.

E v a l u a t i o n o f t h e professional capacity of the students

(Zhao, Liu, & Ma, 2019)

The research presents a study of a BCT-based system
for assessing students' skills,
using a clustering algorithm to analyze academic performance and other extracurricular achievements.

Support for lifelong learning

(Sharples & Domingue, 2016)

It proposes a blockchain-based registry to recognize intellectual effort and

create a reputational
reward system.

Fee and credit transfer management

(Srivastava et al., 2018)

It proposes a blockchain-based platform for the
interaction of multiple HEIs
(Higher Education Institutions) that allows the verification of certificates and academic credits, which
can be transferred between different
organizations through tokens.

Skills management

(Williams, 2019)

Envisions a scenario where universities will outsource parts of their course delivery and evaluation to remain
competitive in a technology-driven environment
motivated by blockchain.

Im provi ng stude nt interactions in e-learning

(Bdiwi, De Runz, Faiz,
& Cherif, 2018)

Proposes a model based on a ubiquitous learning environment that delivers educational
services on a blockchain platform, integrating this technology with IoT.

Protection of learning
objects

(Hori et al., 2018)

Proposes a decentralized e-learning platform called
CHiLO that utilizes e-books and
other learning objects, is based on blockchain technology, uses virtual currencies, and considers
copyright rights.

O
b t a i n i n g d i g i t a l guardianship consent

(Gilda & Mehrotra, 2018)

Proposes a more efficient data authorization framework based on blockchain technology (BCT) to manage permissions in a public
school.

Rate and
credit transfer management

(Asamoah et al., 2023)

The study proposes a platform based on BCT and
crowdsourcing for student loans
in which investors will be incorporated to provide funds
to higher education students

Permissions and credentials management

(Tariq, Haq,
& Ali, 2022)

Presents Cerberus, a prototype for BCT-based
credential verification. Addresses real fraud scenarios and credential revocation through features like data privacy and transcript
verification

Certificate management

(Alnafrah & Mouselli, 2021)

Proposes a blockchain scheme in an HEI using public and private keys for each student, through which
they can access
academic records that
have been validated by the institution and can be accessed by any organization worldwide.

Certificate management

(Guerreiro, Ferreira, Fonseca, & Correia, 2022)

Integrates an open-source academic management system with a blockchain

platform to record certificates and diplomas awarded by an HEI.

Certificate management

(Jaramillo & Piedra, 2020)

Proposes a BCT-based model for the registration of
academic certifications. Identifies
actors, processes, and components for implementation.

Certificate management

(Luis
Palma, Vigil, Pereira, & Martina, 2019)

It implements a blockchain-based system for
registering degrees and academic
credits in the higher education system, utilizing the Brazilian Public Key Infrastructure (PKI).

Certificate management

(Morales-Morales, Rosero- Correa,
& Morales-Cardoso, 2020)

Proposes a blockchain-based application that enables
the replication of the degree
registration process issued by a HEI without the need for a central verifying entity.

Certificate management

(Badr et al., 2019)

Proposes a model for the transfer and verification of tamper-proof academic records.

Certificate management

(Rane et al., 2020)

Conducts a research study to validate university certificates in local and

international contexts.

Certificate management

(Lutfiani et al., 2022)

Proposes a certificate validation system based
on blockchain technology with the purpose of preventing and/or detecting fraud in such
academic documents.

Certificate management

(Rustemi et al., 2023)

Conduct a systematic study focused on academic
certificate verification systems. Describes the most important challenges for its deployment and develops
a taxonomy with its main themes.

TYPE OF STUDY

REFERENCE

RELEVANT FINDINGS

Certificate management

(Rasool et al., 2020)

Presents a prototype based on BCT and optical
character recognition for the
verification of academic degree titles and in this way generate efficiency in the mass presentation of
degree records

Certificate management

(Le Van Tan, &
Pham Minh Hung,
2024)

Proposes a blockchain-based system
for managing academic certificates with
QR code verification.

Certificate management

(Oluwaseyi, A, 2024)

Designs a blockchain-based system
using Ethereum and IPFS to verify

university certificates securely.

Literature
review BCT in education

(Rojas et al.,
2020)

Analyzes various fields of application of BCT within
the education domain and
describes interesting pilot
projects conducted in educational institutions.

Literature
review BCT in education

(Alammary et al., 2019)

Conducts a systematic review study that addresses BCT applications in the

field of education and the benefits and challenges to be faced.

Literature
review BCT in education

(Tahora, Saha, Sakib, Shahriar, & Haddad, 2023)

Through an SLR study, it evaluates the benefits of
implementing BCT technology for
management in higher education, analyzing limitations and challenges in the educational field.

Literature
review BCT in education

(Zou,
Meng, Zhang, Zhang, & Li, 2020)

Through a comprehensive study, it analyzes the
current state of BCT academic
research and its application scenarios. Recognizes the advantages and challenges of this technology and discusses future
trends related to blockchain

Literature
review BCT in education

(Ocheja, Agbo, Oyelere, Flanagan, & Ogata, 2022)

Conduct a qualitative bibliometric study. Highlights a temporal analysis, emerging themes and practical cases of adoption and
integration with educational technologies

Literature
review BCT in education

(Silaghi,
D. L., & Popescu, D. E, 2024)

Conducts a systematic review of blockchain initiatives in higher education, comparing
them to institutional best practices.

Literature
review BCT in education

(Tahora,
S., Saha, B., Sakib, N., Shahriar, H., & Haddad, H.2024))

Critically analyzes the benefits, challenges, and risks of using blockchain

in the higher education ecosystem

Management of transfers and credits

(Bedi,
Gole, Dhiman, & Gupta, 2020)

Describes a blockchain-based application that
enables transparent and traceable
management of scholarship applications awarded to students by a government school program in India.

Management of transfers and credits

(Turkanović et al., 2018)

Proposes a blockchain-based platform called EduCTX based
on the European Credit Transfer and
Accumulation System (ECTS).

M a n a g e m e n t
o f competences and learning results

(Lizcano, Lara, White, & Aljawarneh, 2020)

It evaluates a decentralized model for transactional
management of content, teaching,
and assessed competencies involving different stakeholders such as students, instructors, and employers.

M a n a g e m e n t
o f competences and learning results

(Chen et al., 2018)

It describes some blockchain applications in the
academic environment and proposes
initiatives to improve or motivate teaching-learning environments.

M a n a g e m e n t
o f competences and learning results

(Jirgensons &
Kapenieks, 2018)

It describes various models from countries within
the European Union (EU) that enable
the management and validation of students' skills and knowledge.

M a n a g e m e n t
o f competences and learning results

(Wu & Li, 2018)

Proposes a model for assessing operational skills in an e-commerce testing environment
using a blockchain platform.

M a n a g e m e n t
o f competences and learning results

(Chaudhari,
S., & Shirole, M., 2024)

Reviews how blockchain can enhance the management of academic records and learning outcomes in higher
education.

Learning Outcomes Management

(Li & Ma, 2021)

Proposes a secure method
for storing and sharing information from

educational records
with high efficiency, availability and privacy

Learning Outcomes Management

(Garg, 2023)

Proposes registering academic history on a BCT platform with
validators in encrypted
format

Rewarding
/ recognition of academic activities

(Ayman et al., 2023)

Presents the design of a
decentralized BCT-based application that promotes knowledge sharing and encourages collaborative
academic contribution through
rewards in a higher education environment

Rewarding
/ recognition of academic activities

(Battah, Salah, Jayaraman,

Yaqoob, &
Khalil, 2023)

It proposes a solution based on BCT for the academic
ranking of institutions that is
based on transparency, traceability, trust and decentralization considering that currently there
is weakness in indicators based on academic and employer
reputation.

These findings are significant as
they reflect the diversity and depth of blockchain technology's (BCT)
application in the educational field. Each study contributes to a different
aspect of how BCT can enhance, innovate, or solve existing problems in higher
education.

Referring to studies on copyright
management and certificate management, they demonstrate how BCT can increase
transparency, security, and efficiency in the issuance and verification of academic credentials. It is crucial in a world where fast and reliable verification of qualifications is increasingly important for
employers and educators. The proposal of a reputation system and
proof-of-stake as fundamental components of the chain to mitigate misconduct in
scientific production directly addresses the challenges of academic integrity.

Studies on learning outcome
management and e-government process optimization illustrate BCT's potential
to improve the administration and accessibility of academic records, as well as to integrate educational systems with
governmental initiatives. BCT can play a significant role in
standardizing and enhancing educational and governmental processes.

Furthermore, studies focusing on the assessment of students’ professional competencies and the management of learning outcomes
demonstrate how blockchain technology (BCT) can be effectively utilized to securely
evaluate and record students’ skills
and achievements—an essential component for workforce development and
lifelong learning. Each of these studies provides compelling evidence of
BCT’s potential to address specific challenges and enhance the quality
and efficiency of higher education systems. The diversity of applications and
the depth of analysis presented in these works establish a strong foundation for future research
and technological advancement in this emerging field.

The systematic review of blockchain applications in higher education highlights both the innovations
introduced and the challenges encountered. The
strengths of the reviewed studies include the development of novel approaches
for certificate issuance and intellectual property management, leveraging
blockchain’s secure and transparent architecture. However, notable limitations persist, including the lack of
longitudinal research and barriers to large-scale adoption, such as
institutional resistance to change and concerns related to ethics and data
privacy.

This research builds upon the
existing literature to offer a critical synthesis of current findings,
identifying prevailing trends and research gaps. By doing so, it contributes to
the broader academic discourse and directs future investigations toward underexplored
areas, providing a comprehensive evaluation of blockchain’s role in
higher education.

As emphasized by Grech &
Camilleri (2017), it is also important to recognize that the benefits
of BCT are most pronounced in specific use cases where its implementation aligns with institutional needs.
The applicability of blockchain isprimarily determined by the fulfillment of key criteria, which are outlined in
Table 3.

Table 3

Criteria for the application
of BCT

CRITERION

DESCRIPTION

Timestamp

The information requires that
the set of transactions be associated with
a timestamp, source, and destination.

Multiple writers

There are multiple transaction generators/writers, meaning different organizations possibly in different physical

locations.

Lack of trust

There is no trust among the actors, meaning each transaction generator would not allow others to edit their entries.

Disintermediation

The generators do not wish to transfer control of the dataset to a centralized
authority for management.

Interdependence

One transaction influences the execution or outcome of another.

Defined rules

There is a defined set of rules,
meaning a transaction is recorded whenever specific conditions are
met, which can be independently and automatically
verified

Store of value

Transactions represent assets or records
with real-world value

A significant research study is
presented by Lutfiani et al. (2022), who developed a reference framework for a fraud
detection system in academic certificates. They conclude that BCT provides an excellent means of validating academic documents, offering quick verification
compared to manual processes that are slower and require
more effort from all parties
involved.

There are interesting references for BCT-based applications that offer benefits, especially in certificate management. Such is
the case of E-Skrol in Malaysia, which the Ministry of Education has deployed
to combat the growing issue of degree fraud, particularly in public
universities (Swiss Quality
Consulting, 2023). Another
application is Blockdemy Certs, which manages digital
documents and ensures
their existence, integrity, and validity through
a digital signature
mechanism based on Ethereum BCT (Yerramsetti et al., 2023). The OS City application
by UNICEF presents an appealing proposition: it enables the recording of
issuance, ranging diplomas to
government licenses, on the blockchain in several countries in Latin America,
aiming to support a large segment
of young people with informal
jobs and without
formal certification
(Jiménez, 2020).

One relevant study that carried out
by Rustemi et al. (2023). In this, they address the potential of BCT for education under five constitutive aspects that are i) the type of blockchain
platform to be used, ii) the automated
process of generating academic certificates, iii) security
and transparency, iv) adaptability of the platform to the educational
environment, and v) enablement of key technologies.

The study by Ayman et al. (2023)
elaborates an interesting proposal for academic sustainability. Through its
BCT-based BlockCampus initiative, it promotes participation and information exchange among members of the academic community at E-JUST University. With the project,
it not only addresses the security, privacy,
and trust issues
that affect HEI systems,
but fundamentally promotes a cohesive and collaborative community that fosters
learning, innovation and professional development of students and academic
staff. To achive this, it introduces token-based reward mechanisms that recognize community contributions and provide
access to services and benefits both on and off the platform. This
initiative has generated a positive perception of the platform, both in terms
of usefulness, ease of use, satisfaction, and trust.

Finally, it is valuable to
acknowledge that several of these initiatives are supported by the United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP), which promotes access to education for
children to acquire the necessary skills in line with the Sustainable Development
Goals (Jirgensons & Kapenieks, 2018).

Results

Approach of the studies analyzed

Within the educational domain, most
blockchain technology (BCT) applications concentrate on certificate management,
aiming to enhance the efficiency of administrative processes in higher
education institutions (HEIs). As noted by Chen et al. (2018), these
applications can be broadly categorized into two main areas: (i) formal contexts,
involving the management
of learning content, learning outcomes, and academic credentials; and (ii) informal
contexts, encompassing the tracking of research experience, skill acquisition, and online learning
activities. This dual categorization reflects
a growing interest
in using BCT to support
lifelong learning and comprehensive academic profiling.

A recurring pattern across the literature is the emphasis on transparency, traceability, and decentralization as core benefits
of BCT in academic settings. Notably, several studies
propose the development of reward ecosystems that incentivize intellectual contributions. For instance, Sharples and Domingue (2016)
introduce Kudos, a reputational reward currency designed to democratize recognition beyond traditional academic
boundaries. Similarly, Mora et al. (2021)
envision a model in which students receive BCT-based virtual currency for
participating in academic or community
engagement, aligning with the Sustainable Development Goals. These currencies could be used for tuition payments, access to institutional services, or even converted
into fiat money, suggesting a potential shift toward value-based
academic participation.

Another interesting analysis can be extracted from Table 2 by performing a classification or grouping of the models,
platforms, or prototypes in which the different investigations are framed.
Thus, the works carried out in accordance with the proposed application type
are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4

Summary of Studies
by Proposed Application Type

TYPE
OF APPLICATION

REFERENCE

QTY.

Issuance of academic certificates

(Alnafrah & Mouselli, 2021), (Jaramillo &
Piedra, 2020), (Luis Palma et al., 2019), (Srivastava et al., 2018),
(Morales-Morales et al.,
2020), (Guerreiro et al., 2022),
(Badr et al.,
2019), (Rane et al., 2020),
(Lutfiani et al.,
2022), (Rustemi et al., 2023),
(Rasool et al.,
2020) (Le Van Tan, & Pham Minh Hung, 2024) (Oluwaseyi, A, 2024)

13

Teaching-learning environment

(Hori et al., 2018), (Lizcano et al., 2020), (Chen
et al., 2018), (Williams, 2019), (Bdiwi et
al., 2018) (Silaghi, D. L., & Popescu, D. E, 2024) (Tahora, S., Saha, B., Sakib, N., Shahriar, H., & Haddad, H.2024))

7

Generic models
/ do not indicate

(Higinio
Mora et al., 2021), (Rojas et al., 2020), (Alammary et al., 2019), (Tahora et
al., 2023), (Zou et al., 2020),
(Ocheja et al., 2022)

5

Academic credits and scholarships

(Bedi et al.,
2020), (Turkanović et al., 2018), (Asamoah et al., 2023)

3

Academic qualifications

(Zhao et al., 2019),
(Jirgensons & Kapenieks, 2018), (Awaji &
Solaiman, 2022)

3

Retribution of academic activities

(Mohan, 2019),
(Sharples & Domingue, 2016), (Battah et al., 2023),
(Ayman et al.,
2023)

4

Record of qualifications

(Nousias et al., 2022),
(Li & Ma,
2021), (Garg, 2023)

3

Permissions management

(Gilda &
Mehrotra, 2018), (Tariq
et al., 2022)
(Chaudhari, S., &
Shirole, M., 2024)

3

Transactional model

(Wu & Li, 2018)

1

Figure 3

Types of BCT-based
models

Quantitative analysis reveals that
29.7% of the reviewed models focus on academic certificate issuance,
while 13.5% aim to optimize the teaching andlearning environment. Together,
these categories represent over half of the studies analyzed (16 out of 42), as illustrated in Figure

3. The predominance of certificate-related applications highlights a key
finding: BCT is primarily leveraged to enhance process
efficiency and mitigate
fraud risks in credential verification. This trend reflects the increasing demand
for verifiable qualifications in a competitive labor market and highlights BCT’s role in strengthening institutional integrity and operational transparency within HEIs.

Challenges in the academic
environment

In
the context of blockchain adoption
within Higher Education
Institutions (HEIs), a
consistent pattern emerges regarding the challenges and limitations that hinder
effective implementation. These difficulties are primarily associated with the
lack of transparency and traceability across various academic processes. As
identified by Bedi et al. (2020), the most recurrent issues include:

•
Limited traceability in internal forms and procedures

•
Loss of information or documentation at different stages
of academic workflows

•
Insufficient transparency in the dissemination of institutional data

•
Difficulty for external
entities to verify
academic information

•
Insecure storage of academic records

Key finding 1

The absence of robust mechanisms for
traceability and data verification is a systemic issue in HEIs, which blockchain technology seeks to address
through its inherent
properties of immutability and
decentralization.

Further analysis reveals additional
structural and technological barriers. Grech & Camilleri (2017) highlight
the lack of standardization in academic procedures and student record formats, as well as the complexity of blockchain systems—particularly regarding storage costs and consensus mechanisms. Moreover, reliance
on third-party services
(e.g., wallets, exchange platforms, token management systems)
introduces integration challenges and potential security vulnerabilities.

Key finding
2

The fragmentation of academic systems
and dependence on external technologies

represent significant obstacles to seamless
blockchain integration in higher education.

Technological limitations are also
prominent. Alammary et al. (2019)
identify several critical concerns:

•
Scalability requires more efficient consensus algorithms to handle
high transaction

volumes

•
Adoption costs, mainly linked to infrastructure transformation

•
Network trustworthiness, demanding clear and
enforceable data-sharing policies

•
Immutability, which complicates the correction of inaccurate or outdated records

Badr et al. (2019) note that ensuring compliance with privacy regulations, such as GDPR, is a
persistent challenge when storing sensitive academic data on blockchain
platforms.

Key finding
3

The tension between blockchain’s immutability and the dynamic nature of academic

data underscores the need for flexible yet secure data governance models.

Rustemi et al. (2023) further emphasize
the importance of interoperability with existing
university systems and the implementation of robust cybersecurity protocols to
prevent unauthorized access. A particularly critical issue involves the
correction or revocation of data, given blockchain’s irreversible
architecture. Additionally, the precision required in defining automation rules
within smart contracts is essential to ensure autonomous execution without
external intervention.

Key finding
4

The technical complexity of blockchain systems, combined with the steep learning curve

for institutional stakeholders, constitutes a significant barrier to widespread adoption in HEIs.

These challenges reflect the evolving maturity of blockchain technology, which remains in a developmental phase. Addressing
them requires not only technical innovation but also institutional commitment
to capacity building and strategic planning. A summary of these challenges is
presented in Table 5.

Table 5

Challenges in deploying
a BCT platform in HEI
environments

TYPE
OF DIFFICULTY

REFERENCE

Functional

•
Poor traceability and transparency in internal processes

•
Academic processes with
low standardization

•
Establish automation policies and rules

•
Learning curve

Information management

•
Lack of transparency in the dissemination of information

•
Loss of information or documentation

•
Information privacy management

•
Data interoperability with other systems

Technological

•
Security schemes for the
storage and management of information

•
Complexity in the use of resources

•
Platform usage costs
and infrastructure transformation

•
Technological dependence on third parties

•
Platform scalability

•
Chain immutability (revocation)

Key findings,
benefits, challenges, and opportunities

The integration of blockchain
technology (BCT) into Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) reveals consistent patterns and key findings that
underscore its transformative potential. A recurring
theme across literature is the emphasis on BCT’s technical advantages, particularly the immutability of records and the decentralization
of data management, which collectively enhance integrity, transparency,
and trust in academic processes. Studies such as Lutfiani et al. (2022)
consistently highlight the capacity of BCT to optimize critical
institutional functions, including degree certification,
admissions, enrollment, and evaluation procedures, thereby reducing the risk of
fraud and corruption.

Key finding 1

The predominant application of BCT in
HEIs centers on credential verification and process automation, reflecting a clear pattern
of prioritizing administrative efficiency and data integrity.

Despite these advantages, the literature also identifies several
technical challenges that

must be addressed to ensure successful implementation. These include:

•
Network scalability which limits transaction throughput in high-volume environments.

•
Interoperability
with legacy academic
systems hinders seamless
integration.

•
Data privacy management, especially
in compliance with international regulations such as the GDPR.

Key finding 2

The most frequently cited barriers to
adoption are technical in nature, suggesting that institutional readiness and
infrastructure modernization are critical prerequisites for BCT deployment.

To mitigate
these challenges, the following technical strategies are recommended:

•
Implementing second-layer solutions
or sidechains to improve scalability.

•
Adopting standard protocols and open APIs to enhance
interoperability.

•
Utilizing advanced encryption and smart contracts to safeguard personal data.

In addition to technical solutions,
the literature emphasizes the importance of a robust governance framework. This
framework should define usage policies, participant roles, and consensus
mechanisms tailored to the specific operational context of HEIs.

Key finding 3

The
absence of standardized governance models is a significant limiting factor in BCT
adoption, underscoring the need for institutional policies that evolve in tandem with technological
advancements.

Ultimately, the successful
integration of BCT in HEIs is projected to yield not only improved efficiency and security in academic processes but also foster
educational innovation and
interinstitutional collaboration.

Key finding 4

When supported by strategic planning
and adaptive governance, BCT can serve as a catalyst for sustainable and
resilient academic ecosystems.

UCE-Camp proposal
as a sustainable university model

Considering proposals such as the one
described in Ayman et al. (2023), the authors propose a sustainable University
model by incorporating new functionalities and
services that enhance the value and utility
of a BCT-based application for users and interested parties
within the academic community. The
five Phases must be considered as described in Table 6.

Table 6

Phases of the proposal

PHASE

DESCRIPTION

Phase 1

Analysis of the needs, objectives and requirements of users and interested parties of the UCE-Camp platform, through

surveys, interviews and participatory workshops

Phase 2

Design of the
new functionalities and services that
will be incorporated into the UCE-Camp platform, using

prototyping, modeling and
simulation techniques

PHASE

DESCRIPTION

Phase 3

Implementation
and testing of the new functionalities and services that will be incorporated
into the UCE-Camp platform, using
agile methodologies, automated testing and code reviews

Phase 4

Deployment and dissemination of the new functionalities and services that
will be incorporated into the UCE-Camp

platform, using effective strategies and channels for the promotion, training and support of users and interested parties.

Phase 5

Monitoring
and improvement of new functionalities and services that will be incorporated
into the UCE-Camp platform, using indicators and feedback mechanisms to measure performance, satisfaction and impact of the platform

The purpose of the model is to
promote sustainable actions within the university environment and will allow the exchange
of goods and services within the academic community.
Such actions could be framed as support in tutoring, volunteering,
serving as support chairs, publications, participating in research, among
others. In turn,
these activities will be rewarded with tokens that will be used to
acquire goods or services provided by the University, such as courses, training, and laboratory time, among others.
The general scheme is presented
in Figure 4.

Figure 4

UCE-Camp Proposal

This proposal must also overcome several challenges, such as those described in previous sections, particularly related to:

•
Enhance awareness, understanding, and confidence in BCT-based technology and

new application among
users and stakeholders.

•
Establish standards, norms, and regulations that ensure interoperability, compatibility,
and compliance of automation rules with legal and ethical
requirements, through collaboration with relevant authorities and
organizations.

•
Optimize infrastructure, resources, and technical capabilities efficiently and securely to implement, maintain, and scale
BCT technology and the UCE-Camp
platform by adopting
appropriate best practices and associated technologies.

•
Generate evidence, evaluation, and
validation of the impacts and results of BCT technology and the UCE-Camp
platform on the quality, equity,
and effectiveness of higher education, through the use of
indicators and feedback mechanisms.

As an implementation strategy, we must consider:

•
Research and Development:

º Feasibility Study: Conduct a study to assess the technical and
economic feasibility of implementing the UCE-Camp platform, which considers a social
cryptocurrency in the university context.

º Prototype Development: Create a prototype of
the cryptocurrency based on blockchain technology, ensuring that it is secure,
scalable, and complies with legal requirements.

•
Integration with University Infrastructure:

º Exchange Platform: Develop the UCE-Camp exchange platform within
the university that allows students and staff to buy, sell, or exchange goods
and services using cryptocurrency.

º Reward Systems: Implement reward systems to incentivize
behaviors that contribute to sustainable development, such as recycling,
volunteering, or participation in sustainable research projects.

•
Cooperation and Alliances:

º Strategic
Alliances: Establish alliances with local businesses and organizations
that accept the cryptocurrency, thereby
extending its use beyond the university
campus.

º  Joint Projects: Promote joint
projects between the university and the community

to solve local
problems using cryptocurrency as a means of financing.

•
Education and Awareness:

º Educational
Programs: Incorporate courses
and workshops on cryptocurrencies,
blockchain, and sustainable development into the university curriculum, with an
emphasis on the UCE-Camp platform.

º Awareness
Campaigns: Launch campaigns to educate the university community about the benefits and
responsible use of social cryptocurrencies, as well as familiarize them with
the UCE-Camp platform.

•
Evaluation and Scalability:

º Monitoring and Evaluation: Establish monitoring mechanisms to
assess the impact of cryptocurrency on the university community and its
contribution to sustainable development goals.

º Scalability Plans: Develop plans to scale the cryptocurrency,
allowing its adoption in other universities and communities.

•
Technical Issues and Feasibility:

º     Cybersecurity: Ensuring
protection against cyberattacks is fundamental to trust
in the cryptocurrency; therefore, the UCE-Camp platform must be robust.

º     Interoperability: Ensure
that the cryptocurrency can interact with other digital currencies and payment systems.

º     Adoption and use: Encouraging widespread adoption among
potential users is a key challenge to the project’s
success.

º     Regulation and Compliance: Navigate
the regulatory landscape
to ensure

compliance with financial and cryptocurrency laws.

This initial model must be refined to
determine the scope and limitations in greater detail, prior to building a
deployment or pilot prototype. In this context, thesis prototypes have been developed to exploit the benefits of BCT technology in HEI. Thus,
Pazmiño (2023)
proposes a social cryptocurrency model that promotes collaborative and
sustainable activities in an academic environment. Similarly, Alpala (2024) proposes the use of an
ERC-20 token- based cryptocurrency to promote environmental awareness and incentivize this behavior in the
university community.

Discussion and Conclusions

The findings of this research, grounded in an up-to-date systematic review, have enabled the
identification of the most relevant proposals and application models of
blockchain technology (BCT) in academic processes,
particularly within higher education institutions. The reviewed literature
primarily focuses on secure certificate issuance and the enhancement of
teaching and learning environments, although other domains have also been addressed.
Key benefits include the prevention of errors, fraud, and corruption in
processes such as academic record management,
degree verification, and plagiarism detection. Moreover, blockchain ensures
data integrity, strengthens information security, and validates the authenticity of issued documents.

Despite these advantages, practical implementations
remain limited and have
predominantly concentrated on certificate management platforms. The application
of BCT in education is still in an emerging phase, with a clear gap between identified institutional needs and effective
deployment. Adoption
faces technical, organizational, and cultural challenges; however, the potential
benefits justify continued exploration and the development of innovative solutions.

The
main contribution of this study
lies in its dual approach: it offers a comprehensive
and current systematic review that provides insight into the state of
blockchain technology in higher education,
and it introduces the UCE-Camp model as a sustainable and applicable solution to improve efficiency, transparency, and quality of academic processes. Unlike previous studies
that remain conceptual or focus on isolated cases, this research
translates existing knowledge into a concrete proposal aligned with
contemporary institutional demands.

The UCE-Camp model represents a
strategic opportunity to transform the educational ecosystem by promoting
more inclusive, collaborative, and autonomous academic management.
Nonetheless, certain limitations must be acknowledged, such as the lack of longitudinal studies and the absence of real-world
implementations, which hinder a complete assessment of their effectiveness. Additionally, issues such as system interoperability, technological scalability, and institutional
acceptance continue to be significant barriers.

For future research, it is
recommended that the UCE-Camp model be piloted to assess its technical, organizational, and cultural
feasibility in real-world settings. This implementation should consider
integration with online courses, digital
certifications, academic portfolios, and social networks, thereby enriching the user learning
experience. Furthermore, it is essential to explore new applications of blockchain
technology in areas such as research management, innovation and knowledge transfer, institutional governance, administrative transparency, and
data protection. These research directions will contribute to the continuous
improvement of quality and excellence in higher education.

Acknowledgements and Declarations

The authors declared
that, in the preparation of this article,
AI tools were used.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors
declared no potential
conflicts of interest
with respect to the research,

authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication

of this
article.

References

Alammary,
A., Alhazmi, S., Almasri, M., & Gillani, S. (2019). Blockchain-Based
Applications in Education: A Systematic Review. Applied Sciences, 9(12), 2400. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9122400

Alnafrah, I., & Mouselli, S. (2021). Revitalizing
blockchain technology potentials for smooth academic records management
and verification in low-income countries. International Journal of Educational Development, 85, 102460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2021.102460

Alpala Calapaqui, J. S. (2024).
Propuesta de un modelo de criptomoneda que promueva la conciencia ambiental
en

la Universidad Central del Ecuador.
Retrieved from: https://www.dspace.uce.edu.ec/handle/25000/35636

Asamoah, K., Darko, A. P., Antwi, C. O., Kodjiku, S. L., Aggrey, E. S., Wang, Q., & Zhu, J. (2023). A Blockchain- Based
Crowdsourcing Loan Platform for Funding Higher Education in Developing
Countries. IEEE Access,
11(24162–24174). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3252917

Awaji, B., & Solaiman, E. (2022). Design,
Implementation, and Evaluation of Blockchain-based Trusted Achievement Record
System for Students in Higher Education. International
Conference on Computer Supported Education, CSEDU - Proceedings, 2,
225–237. https://doi.org/10.5220/0011044200003182

Ayman, M., El-harty, Y., Rashed, A., Fathy, A., Abdullah, A., Wassim, O., & Gomaa,
W. (2023). BlockCampus: A Blockchain-Based DApp for enhancing Student
Engagement and Reward
Mechanisms in an Academic
Community for E-JUST University. ArXiv Preprint
ArXiv:2307.11662. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/ abs/2307.11662

Badr, A., Rafferty, L., Mahmoud, Q. H., Elgazzar, K.,
& Hung, P. C. K. (2019). A permissioned blockchain- based system for
verification of academic records. 2019
10th IFIP International Conference on New Technologies, Mobility and Security,
NTMS 2019, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/NTMS.2019.8763831

Battah, A., Salah, K., Jayaraman, R., Yaqoob, I., & Khalil,
A. (2023). Using Blockchain for Enabling Transparent, Traceable, and Trusted
University Ranking Systems. IEEE Access,
11, 23792–23807. https://doi. org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3253948

Bdiwi, R., De Runz, C., Faiz, S., & Cherif,
A. A. (2018). A blockchain based decentralized platform
for ubiquitous learning
environment. 2018 IEEE 18th International
Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), 90–92. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2018.00028

Bedi, P., Gole, P., Dhiman, S., & Gupta, N.
(2020). Smart Contract based Central Sector Scheme of Scholarship for College and University
Students. Procedia
Computer Science, 171, 790–799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. procs.2020.04.086

Casino, F., Dasaklis,
T. K., & Patsakis, C. (2019). A systematic literature review of blockchain-based applications: Current status, classification and open issues. Telematics and Informatics, 36,
55–81. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.11.006

Chaudhari, S., & Shirole, M. (2024). Blockchain-driven academic learning record management in higher education: A
comprehensive review. SN Computer Science.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-025-03952-z

Chen, G., Xu, B., Lu, M., & Chen, N.-S. (2018).
Exploring blockchain technology and its potential applications for education. Smart Learning Environments, 5(1),
1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-017-0050-x

Conti, M., Sandeep, K. E., Lal, C., & Ruj, S.
(2018). A survey on security and privacy issues of bitcoin. IEEE Communications
Surveys and Tutorials, 20(4),
3416–3452. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2018.2842460

Cortés, O., Pinto, A., & Atrio, S. (2015).
E-portfolios as a tool for active constructionist learning in educational
technology Rev. Lasallista Investig.
vol.12 no.2 Caldas July/Dec. 2015.

Efanov, D., & Roschin, P. (2018). The all-pervasiveness of the blockchain technology. Procedia Computer Science, 123,
116–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.01.019

Garg, R. (2023). Data
Management. In Blockchain for Real World Applications (pp. 193–225). https://doi.
org/10.1002/9781119903765.ch9

Gilda, S., & Mehrotra, M. (2018). Blockchain for Student Data Privacy and Consent. 2018 International Conference on Computer Communication and
Informatics (ICCCI), 1–5. IEEE.

Grech, A., & Camilleri, A. F. (2017). Blockchain in Education. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2523). https:// doi.org/10.1063/5.0110211

Guerreiro, S., Ferreira, J. F., Fonseca, T., & Correia, M. (2022). Integrating an Academic Management System with Blockchain: A case study.
Blockchain: Research and Applications, 3, 100099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
bcra.2022.100099

Hori, M., Ono, S., Miyashita, K., Kobayashi, S.,
Miyahara, H., Kita, T., … Yamaji, K. (2018). Learning System based on Decentralized Learning Model using Blockchain and SNS. Proceedings of the 10th International
Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2018), 1,
183–190.

Jaramillo, M. P., & Piedra, N. (2020). Use of blockchain technology for Academic Certification in Higher Education
Institutions. Proceedings of the 15th Latin American Conference on Learning Technologies, LACLO 2020, 0–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/LACLO50806.2020.9381181

Jimenez, D. (2020). UNICEF lanza Os City:
Certificación digital con Blockchain. Retrieved February 23, 2023, from Cointelegraph.
https://es.cointelegraph.com/news/unicef-launches-os-city-digital-certification-with- blockchain

Jirgensons, M., & Kapenieks, J. (2018). Blockchain
and the future of digital learning credential assessment and management. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 20(1),
145–156. https://doi.org/10.2478/
jtes-2018-0009

Kitchenham, B. (2014).
Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews. Keele University
Technical Report, 33,

(1–26).

Le Van Tan, & Pham Minh Hung. (2024). Driving
digital transformation in certificate management: A blockchain- based solution
for Vinh University. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 14(1), 119–124. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2024.14.1.2031

Li, Z., & Ma, Z. (2021). A blockchain-based credible
and secure education
experience data management scheme supporting for searchable encryption. China Communications, 18(6), 172–183. https://doi.org/10.23919/
JCC.2021.06.014

Lizcano, D., Lara, J., White, B., & Aljawarneh, S. (2020). Blockchain-based approach to create
a model of trust in

open and ubiquitous higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 32, 109–134.

Lutfiani, N., Apriani, D., Nabila, E. A., &
Juniar, H. L. (2022). Academic Certificate Fraud Detection System Framework
Using Blockchain Technology. Blockchain
Frontier Technology, 1(2), 55–64. https://doi. org/10.34306/bfront.v1i2.55

MIT Media Lab. (n.d.). Digital Academic Credentials.
Retrieved February 25, 2023, from Digital
Academic Credentials. https://www.media.mit.edu/projects/media-lab-digital-certificates/overview/

Mohan, V. (2019).
On the use of blockchain-based mechanisms to tackle academic misconduct. Research Policy, 48(9), 103805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103805

Mora, H., Morales-Morales, M. R., Pujol-López, F. A., & Mollá-Sirvent, R. (2021). Social cryptocurrencies
as model for enhancing sustainable development. Kybernetes, 50(10), 2883–2916. https://doi. org/10.1108/K-05-2020-0259

Morales-Morales, M., Rosero-Correa, L., & Morales-Cardoso, S. (2020). Registro
de títulos académicos mediante una aplicación basada
en Blockchain y Smart Contracts. Cátedra, 3(2),
73–98. https://doi.org/10.29166/
catedra.v3i2.2200

Nousias, N., Tsakalidis, G., Michoulis, G., Petridou,
S., & Vergidis, K. (2022). A process-aware approach for blockchain-based
verification of academic qualifications. Simulation
Modelling Practice and Theory, 121, 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2022.102642

Ocheja, P., Agbo, F. J., Oyelere, S. S., Flanagan, B.,
& Ogata, H. (2022). Blockchain in Education: A Systematic Review and Practical Case Studies. IEEE Access,
10, 99525–99540. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ACCESS.2022.3206791

Oluwaseyi, A. (2024). Utilizing
blockchain technology for university certificate verification. International Journal of Advanced Information Systems,
12(45), 1–10. https://www.ijais.org/archives/volume12/number45/
oluwaseyi-2024-ijca-451977.pdf

Oyelere, S. S., Sanusi,
I. T., & Suhonen, J. (2020). Tecnología Blockchain en Educación: una revisión sistemática.

SciELO. http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1990-86442023000300326

Palma, L., Gomes,
F., Vigil, M., & Martina,
J. (2019). A Transparent and Privacy-Aware Approach
Using Smart Contracts
for Car Insurance Reward Programs. International Conference on Information Systems Security,

pp. 3-20. Springer, Cham.

Palma, L., Vigil,
M., Pereira, F., & Martina,
J. (2019). Blockchain and smart contracts for higher education
registry in Brazil. International
Journal of Network Management, 29(3), e2061.

Pazmiño Valverde, K. R. (2023). Propuesta de un modelo de criptomoneda
social basada en Blockchain que impulse actividades colaborativas y de sostenibilidad en la Universidad Central del Ecuador. Disponible en: http://www.dspace.uce.edu.ec/handle/25000/30787

Rane, M., Singh,
S., Singh, R., & Amarsinh, V. (2020). Integrity and Authenticity of Academic Documents Using Blockchain Approach. ITM Web of Conferences, 32, 03038. https://doi.org/10.1051/itmconf/20203203038

Rasool, S., Saleem, A., Iqbal, M., Dagiuklas, T.,
Mumtaz, S., & ul Qayyum, Z. (2020). Docschain: Blockchain- based IoT
solution for verification of degree documents. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, 7(3),
827–837. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSS.2020.2973710

Rivera-Vargas, P., & Lindin, C. (2020). Blockchain
en Educación. Entre la búsqueda de seguridad en el mundo digital
y el determinismo tecnológico. Revista
de la Educación Superior, 49(194). DOI: 10.36857/ resu.2020.194.1129159.

Rojas, W., Gayoso Martínez, V., &
Queiruga-Dios, A. (2020). Blockchain in education: New challenges. 13th International Conference on Computational Intelligence in Security for Information Systems (CISIS 2020), 380–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57805-3

Rustemi, A., Dalipi, F., Atanasovski, V., &
Risteski, A. (2023). A Systematic Literature Review on Blockchain- Based
Systems for Academic Certificate Verification. IEEE Access, 11, 64679–64696. https://doi. org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3289598

Silaghi, D. L., & Popescu,
D. E. (2024). A systematic review of blockchain-based initiatives in comparison to best practices used in
higher education institutions. Computers,
14(4), 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/
computers14040141

Sharples, M., & Domingue, J. (2016). The
blockchain and kudos: A distributed system for educational record, reputation
and reward. Lecture Notes in Computer
Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial
Intelligence and Lecture
Notes in Bioinformatics), 9891 LNCS, 490–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-45153-4_48

Srivastava, A., Bhattacharya, P., Singh, A., Mathur,
A., Prakash, O., & Pradhan, R. (2018). A distributed credit transfer educational framework based on
blockchain. 2018 Second International
Conference on Advances
in Computing, Control and Communication Technology (IAC3T),
54–59. https://doi.org/10.1109/
iac3t.2018.8674023

Swan, M. (2018). Chapter
Five - Blockchain for Business:
Next-Generation Enterprise Artificial Intelligence

Systems. Advances in Computers, 111, 121–162. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1016/bs.adcom.2018.03.013

Swiss Quality Consulting. (2023). Blockchain in
academic credential verification: A case study of Malaysia’s Ministry of Education. The Swiss Quality. https://theswissquality.ch/blockchain-in-academic-credential-
verification-a-case-study-of-malaysias-ministry-of-education/

Tahar, M., Hammi, B., Bellot,
P., & Serhrouchni, A. (2018). Bubbles
of Trust: A decentralized blockchain-based authentication system for
IoT. Computers & Security, 78,
126–142. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1016/j.
cose.2018.06.004

Tahora, S., Saha, B., Sakib, N., Shahriar,
H., & Haddad,
H. (2023). Blockchain Technology in Higher Education
Ecosystem: Unraveling the Good, Bad, and Ugly. Proceedings - International Computer Software and Applications Conference, 2023-June, 1047–1056. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMPSAC57700.2023.00160

Tahora, S., Saha, B., Sakib, N., Shahriar, H., &
Haddad, H. (2024). Blockchain technology in higher education ecosystem:
Unraveling the good, bad, and ugly. arXiv
preprint. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.04071

Tariq, A., Haq, H. B., & Ali, S. T. (2022).
Cerberus: A blockchain-based accreditation and degree verification system. IEEE
Transactions on Computational Social Systems, 10(4), 1503–1514. https://doi.org/10.1109/ TCSS.2022.3188453

Tinoco Plasencia, C. J., Juarez
Trinidad, A. S., Gonzáles Rosas,
F. A., & Tamayo Franco,
J. W. (2023). Tecnología
Blockchain en Educación: una revisión sistemática.Conrado, 19(92).

Trejo H. (2019). Recursos digitales para la
elaboración de e-portafolios educativos, Sincronia, 75. https://www.
redalyc.org/journal/5138/513857794017/513857794017.pdf

Turkanović, M., Hölbl, M., Košič, K., Heričko, M., & Kamišalić, A. (2018). EduCTX:
A blockchain-based higher

education credit
platform. IEEE Access, 6, 5112–5127.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2789929

Van Damme, D. (2001). Higher
Education in the Age of Globalization: The need for a new regulatory framework for recognition, quality assurance and accreditation Introductory Paper for the UNESCO Expert Meeting. Introductory Paper for the UNESCO Expert Meeting Paris, 10-11 September
2001, 1–13. Retrieved
from http://www.immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/GENERAL/UNESCO/U011011V.pdf

Williams, P. (2019). Does competency-based education
with blockchain signal a new mission for universities? Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 41(1),
104–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/136008
0X.2018.1520491

Wohlin, C. (2014). Guidelines for snowballing in
systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. https://doi.org/10.1145/2601248.2601268

Wu, B., &
Li, Y. (2018). Design of Evaluation System
for Digital Education Operational Skill Competition Based on Blockchain. 15th
International Conference on E-Business Engineering (ICEBE), 102–109. IEEE.

Yerramsetti, S. U. K. S. M., Velagapudi, R., Vennam, S. R., Ratnamala, B., & Reddyvaari, V. R. (2023).
A review on student
document management system based on Ethereum Blockchain (PERSONAL-D). International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), 12(8). https://www.ijert.org/a-review-on-student- document-management-system-based-on-ethereum-blockchain-personal-d

Zhang, S., & Lee, J.H. (2020). Analysis of the
main consensus protocols of blockchain. ICT
Express, 6(2), 93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icte.2019.08.001

Zhao, W., Liu, K., & Ma, K. (2019). Design of student capability evaluation system merging blockchain technology.

Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1168, No.3), 032123.
IOP Publishing.

Zou, Y., Meng, T., Zhang, P., Zhang, W., & Li, H. (2020). Focus on blockchain: A comprehensive survey on academic and
application. IEEE Access, 8,
187182–187201. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3030491