Evaluation of Sustainable Digital Currency Exchange Platforms Using Analytic Models

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The objective of the paper that is captured in the paper title and the abstract is entirely different from the work carried out. The author claimed the paper seeks to assess exchange platforms for digital currencies to determine their sustainability to help users make the right decision.

The author used the following properties in assessing the exchange platforms: trading fees, user interface, number of tradable cryptocurrencies, trading volume, support services and securities. There is no reference to justify that these factors are useful for examining the sustainability of any platform. There is also no reference at the beginning of the article to justify that there are sustainability problems in crypto trading platforms.

The article is poorly structured and lacks a research question. The conclusion doesn't show how the article achieved the paper's objective which is contained in the paper title and abstract. Meanwhile, the objective in the paper introduction chapter is different from the one contained in the title and abstract. Hence, it is not clear what exactly is the objective and research gaps the paper address.

 

Author Response

Our thanks for your comments. We have carefully addressed them all as follows:

Reviewer 1

The objective of the paper that is captured in the paper title and the abstract is entirely different from the work carried out. The author claimed the paper seeks to assess exchange platforms for digital currencies to determine their sustainability to help users make the right decision.

Response: Thanks for your comment. We have discussed the details of this paper in the revised draft. Please see the abstract.

The author used the following properties in assessing the exchange platforms: trading fees, user interface, number of tradable cryptocurrencies, trading volume, support services and securities. There is no reference to justify that these factors are useful for examining the sustainability of any platform. There is also no reference at the beginning of the article to justify that there are sustainability problems in crypto trading platforms.

Response: Thanks for your comment. We have discussed the details of this paper in the revised draft. Please see page 5.

The article is poorly structured and lacks a research question. The conclusion doesn't show how the article achieved the paper's objective which is contained in the paper title and abstract. Meanwhile, the objective in the paper introduction chapter is different from the one contained in the title and abstract. Hence, it is not clear what exactly the objective is and research gaps the paper address.

Response: Thanks for your comment. We have discussed the details of this paper in the revised draft. Please see pages 1 and 10.

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript presents an interesting and timely issue and it can be considered for publication in Sustainability. The following points need to be addressed before, however:
- What criteria are used to qualify a person interviewed (in total 34) as an expert? 
- How 'sensitivity' shown in Fig. 2 is precisely defined, in quantitative terms. As far as I can see this notion  appears here only once. Perhaps a defining expression can be given?
- No mention is given of the so called 'wash trade' practices that happen to be taking place on some of the platforms, see e.g. 'Crypto Wash Trading' in https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.10984. Why these are not considered?
- The subject addressed in this manuscript is of broad interest and interdisciplinary. As such and in order to gain more visibility and attract a broader audience some digital currencies related work from other areas could be cited. 'Multiscale characteristics of the emerging global cryptocurrency market' in https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2020.10.005 is one such obvious example. 

Author Response

Our thanks for your comments. We have carefully addressed them all as follows:

This manuscript presents an interesting and timely issue and it can be considered for publication in Sustainability. The following points need to be addressed before, however:
- What criteria are used to qualify a person interviewed (in total 34) as an expert? 

Response: Thanks for your comment. We have discussed the details of this paper in the revised draft. Please see page 4, Research Method section.

- How 'sensitivity' shown in Fig. 2 is precisely defined, in quantitative terms. As far as I can see this notion appears here only once. Perhaps a defining expression can be given?

Response: Thanks for your comment. We have discussed the details of this paper in the revised draft. Please see page 7.

- No mention is given of the so called 'wash trade' practices that happen to be taking place on some of the platforms, see e.g. 'Crypto Wash Trading' in https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.10984. Why these are not considered?

Response: Thanks for your comment. We just focused on six criteria based on the literature review.  

- The subject addressed in this manuscript is of broad interest and interdisciplinary. As such and in order to gain more visibility and attract a broader audience some digital currencies related work from other areas could be cited. 'Multiscale characteristics of the emerging global cryptocurrency market' in https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2020.10.005 is one such obvious example. 

Response: Thanks for your comment. We have discussed the details of this paper in the revised draft. We added this reference:

Wątorek, M., Drożdż, S., Kwapień, J., Minati, L., Oświęcimka, P., & Stanuszek, M. (2021). Multiscale characteristics of the emerging global cryptocurrency market. Physics Reports, 901, 1-82.

Reviewer 3 Report

In my view, this paper contributes to literature as it represents a group of countries. However, the paper may not be accepted unless the following issues are fully addressed.

1. The introduction flow is not acceptable. The problem statement has not been well clarified, and the research GAP is not well explained scientifically. Therefore, the authors are advised to revise it and modify it with proper justification and arguments.

2. At the end of the section, it should be addressed how the paper is structured, that is the different sections of the paper.

3. Discussion is limited. Discussion of results needs more comparison with prior studies. How are results similar or different what has been done before in related papers? This will help highlight any unique findings.

4. Author also should provide limitations of the existing study along with future research scopes.

5. The conclusion should be extended. Policy advice should be added to  conclusion.

Author Response

Our thanks for your comments. We have carefully addressed them all as follows:

The introduction flow is not acceptable. The problem statement has not been well clarified, and the research GAP is not well explained scientifically. Therefore, the authors are advised to revise it and modify it with proper justification and arguments.

Response: Thanks for your comment. We have discussed the details of this paper in the revised draft. Please see page 1 and 2.

At the end of the section, it should be addressed how the paper is structured, that is the different sections of the paper.

Response: Thanks for your comment. We have discussed the details of this paper in the revised draft. Please see page 1.

Author also should provide limitations of the existing study along with future research scopes. The conclusion should be extended. Policy advice should be added to conclusion.

Response: Thanks for your comment. We have discussed the details of this paper in the revised draft. Please see the conclusion section.

Reviewer 4 Report

1. Keywords:

Usually keywords don't take (over) sequences from the title - I recommend replacing them so that they can reflect the ideas in the article and not just be redundant

2. Introduction:

• Some ideas in the Introduction are taken entirely from the Abstract (or vice versa) and the effect obtained is not one of accentuation, but redundancy (unnecessary repetition). I recommend rewording / reformulation.
• The section of introduction should include: the context of the study, the gap in literature that the present paper intends to cover, which is the used methodology, which             are the main results presented in short, which is the originality of this paper,   the main                 implication policy of these results and a short plan of the rest of the paper. Some of them are missing. I recommend to fill them (e.g. the plan of the rest of the paper should be put at the end of Introduction)

3. Literature review:

The authors should pay attention to avoid enumeration of researches but rather to have a critical review of literature. I consider the section of literature review sould be reorganized a little bit in order to get a more critical review of the research field

4. Research methods:

• Which is the source of Figure no. 1? I assume it's Author's own processing, but it has to be filled
• The same question and the same observation is valid for Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4
• Figure 2 seems to be copied and in no case as if it were obtained from a sheet. I recommend restoring it with the details of the source and how was obtained

5. Discussion:

• Some ideas in the Discussion are taken entirely from the Abstract and Introduction and the effect obtained is not one of accentuation, but redundancy (unnecessary repetition). I recommend rewording / reformulation
• I suggest to highlight a Results (sub) section, to put the robustness checks within the section of Results. The findings should be aligned with other findings from literature
• It would be appreciated if the authors would introduce a subchapter / chapter in which they would propose some "concrete" measures of alignment and convergence of measures for a somehow unitary functioning

6. Conclusion:

• Same observation as in Discussion. It is difficult to understand why the authors feel the need to repeat the same idea several times without adding any value to the previous exposition. I recommend rewording / reformulation
• This section should be completed with the limits of the research and the way in which these limits will be addressed in the future

7. References:

The references don’t address the rules of the journal. Should be aligned with the requirement of the journal template.

8. Others:

For a better clarification of the authors' contribution and of the general situation, I recommend that the sections be completed: Author Contributions, Data Availability Statement and Conflicts of Interest, like in journal template

Author Response

Our thanks for your comments. We have carefully addressed them all as follows:

Usually keywords don't take (over) sequences from the title - I recommend replacing them so that they can reflect the ideas in the article and not just be redundant

Response: Thanks for your comment. We have discussed the details of this paper in the revised draft.

Introduction:

Some ideas in the Introduction are taken entirely from the Abstract (or vice versa) and the effect obtained is not one of accentuation, but redundancy (unnecessary repetition). I recommend rewording / reformulation.

Response: Thanks for your comment. We have discussed the details of this paper in the revised draft. Please see the introduction section.

Literature review:

The authors should pay attention to avoid enumeration of researches but rather to have a critical review of literature. I consider the section of literature review sould be reorganized a little bit in order to get a more critical review of the research field.

Response: Thanks for your comment. We have discussed the details of this paper in the revised draft. Please see the literature review section.

Research methods:

Which is the source of Figure no. 1? I assume it's Author's own processing, but it has to be filled. The same question and the same observation is valid for Table 2.

Response: Thanks for your comment. We have discussed the details of this paper in the revised draft.

Figure 2 seems to be copied and in no case as if it were obtained from a sheet. I recommend restoring it with the details of the source and how was obtained.

Response: Thanks for your comment. Fig 2 shows the sensitivity of exchange performance and the relative importance given to each of the criteria by the decision maker.

Discussion:

Some ideas in the Discussion are taken entirely from the Abstract and Introduction and the effect obtained is not one of accentuation, but redundancy (unnecessary repetition). I recommend rewording / reformulation

Response: Thanks for your comment. We have discussed the details of this paper in the revised draft.

Conclusion:

This section should be completed with the limits of the research and the way in which these limits will be addressed in the future.

Response: Thanks for your comment. We have discussed the details of this paper in the revised draft. Please see the conclusion section.

Others:

For a better clarification of the authors' contribution and of the general situation, I recommend that the sections be completed: Author Contributions, Data Availability Statement and Conflicts of Interest, like in journal template

Response: Thanks for your comment. We have discussed the details of this paper in the revised draft.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

While the authors have now addressed most of my comments, however, one key point about the theoretical/ empirical background of the paper has not been addressed: "There is also no reference at the beginning of the article to justify that there are sustainability problems in crypto trading platforms."

The authors must clearly present in the introduction section of the paper:

• what are the sustainability problem(s) in cryptocurrency exchange platforms?
• provide examples of such problems. There are several cases of crashed crypto exchange platforms resulting in the loss of assets of crypto users. 

The authors must empirically show that the problem exists, thereby, justifying the need for the paper.

Author Response

Our thanks for your comments. We have carefully addressed them all as follows:

There is also no reference at the beginning of the article to justify that there are sustainability problems in crypto trading platforms." The authors must clearly present in the introduction section of the paper.

Response: Thanks for your comment. Revised as suggested. Please see the introduction section.

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript can be accepted for publication in its current form.

Author Response

Thanks a lot!

Neda

Reviewer 3 Report

It can be published

Author Response

Thanks a lot.

Neda

Reviewer 4 Report

1. Introduction:

Some ideas in the Introduction are very similar from the Abstract (or vice versa) and the effect obtained is not one of accentuation, but redundancy (unnecessary repetition).  Concrete example are the lines 35, 36, 37, 38. I recommend rewording / reformulation

2. References:

The references don’t address the rules of the journal. “Must” be aligned with the requirement of the journal template.

Author Response

Our thanks for your comments. We have carefully addressed them all as follows:

1.Introduction:

Some ideas in the Introduction are very similar from the Abstract (or vice versa) and the effect obtained is not one of accentuation, but redundancy (unnecessary repetition). Concrete example are the lines 35, 36, 37, 38. I recommend rewording / reformulation

Response: Thanks for your comment. Revised as suggested.

2.References:

The references don’t address the rules of the journal. “Must” be aligned with the requirement of the journal template.

Response: Thanks for your comment. Revised as suggested.