The Sustainability of Investing in Cryptocurrencies: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper's aim corresponds to the Journal areas. The authors do a good analysis. However, before publishing few changes should be done:

1. Please, clarify the chosen keywords for analysis. What filters are used for selecting paper (Year, Language, Country, Type of Documents...)

2. Considering the requirements:

Reviews: These provide concise and precise updates on the latest progress made in a given area of research. Systematic reviews should follow the PRISMA guidelines.

Review manuscripts should comprise the front matter, literature review sections and the back matter. The template file can also be used to prepare the front and back matter of your review manuscript. It is not necessary to follow the remaining structure. Structured reviews and meta-analyses should use the same structure as research articles and ensure they conform to the PRISMA guidelines.

Please, take into account the abovementioned requirements. 

3. Please, clarify the thresholds for VosViwer. Besides, It would be better to show and explain the meaning of the links and the strengths of the total links. As a recommendation, see the following papers:

Fetscherin, M., & Heinrich, D. (2015). Consumer brand relationships research: A bibliometric citation meta-analysis. Journal of Business Research, 68(2), 380-390. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.06.010

Muhuri, P. K., Shukla, A. K., & Abraham, A. (2019). Industry 4.0: A bibliometric analysis and detailed overview. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 78, 218-235. doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2018.11.007

Soliman, M., Lyulyov , O., Shvindina, H., Figueiredo, R., & Pimonenko, T. (2021). Scientific Output of the European Journal of Tourism Research: A Bibliometric Overview and Visualization. European Journal of Tourism Research, 28, 2801. https://ejtr.vumk.eu/index.php/about/article/view/2069

Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J., & Davarzani, H. (2015). Green supply chain management: A review and bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Production Economics, 162, 101-114. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.01.003

4. The keywords in the network map of co-occurrence (Figure 4) should be cleaned from similar words: stock and stocks etc.

5. The paper will be benefited if the authors add the overlay visualisation to show the evolition of analysed issues. 

6. It would be better, in conclusion, to add the comparison analysis with the previous investigations. Besides, add the limitation of the study.

Besides, pay atteintion to the citations. It shoud be changed considering the Journal requirements. 

Moderate editing of the English language

Author Response

Reviewer #1: The paper's aim corresponds to the Journal areas. The authors do a good analysis. However, before publishing few changes should be done:

Comments to the Author

1. Please, clarify the chosen keywords for analysis. What filters are used for selecting paper (Year, Language, Country, and Type of Documents...)
2. Considering the requirements: Reviews: These provide concise and precise updates on the latest progress made in a given area of research. Systematic reviews should follow the PRISMA guidelines. Review manuscripts should comprise the front matter, literature review sections and the back matter. The template file can also be used to prepare the front and back matter of your review manuscript. It is not necessary to follow the remaining structure. Structured reviews and meta-analyses should use the same structure as research articles and ensure they conform to the PRISMA guidelines.

Please, take into account the abovementioned requirements.

3. Please, clarify the thresholds for VosViwer. Besides, It would be better to show and explain the meaning of the links and the strengths of the total links. As a recommendation, see the following papers:

Fetscherin, M., & Heinrich, D. (2015). Consumer brand relationships research: A bibliometric citation meta-analysis. Journal of Business Research, 68(2), 380-390. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.06.010

Muhuri, P. K., Shukla, A. K., & Abraham, A. (2019). Industry 4.0: A bibliometric analysis and detailed overview. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 78, 218-235. doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2018.11.007

Soliman, M., Lyulyov , O., Shvindina, H., Figueiredo, R., & Pimonenko, T. (2021). Scientific Output of the European Journal of Tourism Research: A Bibliometric Overview and Visualization. European Journal of Tourism Research, 28, 2801. https://ejtr.vumk.eu/index.php/about/article/view/2069

Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J., & Davarzani, H. (2015). Green supply chain management: A review and bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Production Economics, 162, 101-114. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.01.003

4. The keywords in the network map of co-occurrence (Figure 4) should be cleaned from similar words: stock and stocks etc.
5. The paper will be benefited if the authors add the overlay visualization to show the evolution of analysed issues.
6. It would be better, in conclusion, to add the comparison analysis with the previous investigations. Besides, add the limitation of the study.

Besides, pay attention to the citations. It should be changed considering the Journal requirements.

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for your comments and recommendations, which we have considered in this new version of the paper.

1. It is explained behind table No. 1 What is the goal in choosing the keywords selected for analysis and other filters used
2. Brief and accurate updates on the latest progress in a particular field of research were taken into account. Systematic reviews followed the PRISMA guidelines.
3. Thresholds are clarified, links and strengths are explained, all recommended references are documented
4. It's been dealt with. thanks for the note
5. The benefit was obtained by visualizing the overlay and showing the development of issues in all the clusters presented in the paper
6. Comparative analysis with previous investigations has been added. Besides, the limitation of the study was added.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper titled “The sustainability of investing in cryptocurrencies: A bibliometric analysis of research trends” analyzes the state of the art in the literature about cryptocurrencies and, in particular, focuses on the relationships between financial dimensions and ESG aspects.

The paper is well written and interesting given the growth of the cryptocurrency literature and the emergence of ESG as a “hot topic” in the recent years.

Given this fact, I recommend the publication of this study after revision, in which I suggest some additional papers and minor changes that could improve the quality of the review.

Page 2, line 98. Authors stated that “This study is unusual because it combines bibliometric techniques and content analysis with an integrative study, allowing us to thoroughly analyze the interplay of two academic fields.” However, in the paper it is possible to read other bibliometric analyses, such as Merediz-Sol, I., & Bariviera, A. F. (2019). Authors should underline here that even though it is unusual, there are other papers in this regard, otherwise it feels rare to find other similar studies in the paper.

Page 3, line 123. I do not think that Bitcoin Cash can be considered “the most popular”(nowadays), you could write Ripple (XRP) instead.

Page 3, line 138. Authors stated “Previous research and technical studies evaluate the performance of cryptocurrencies mostly using basic metrics like the Sharpe ratio, which adjusts returns for total (specific and diversifiable) risk.” Consider that scholars have also used other simple metrics, such as buy-and-hold returns to evaluate the cryptocurrency market. You could cite, for instance:

Momtaz, P. P. (2021). The pricing and performance of cryptocurrency. The European Journal of Finance, 27(4-5), 367-380.

Vidal-Tomás, D. (2023). Blockchain, sport and fan tokens. Journal of Economic Studies.

Momtaz, P. P. (2020). Initial coin offerings. Plos one, 15(5), e0233018.

Page 4, line 196. There is a typo, see “To incorporate all scientific publications”

Page 8, line 312. There is a typo, Corbett is wrong, it should be Corbet.

Page 11, line 423. When addressing the efficiency topic, I think that it is relevant that authors also include the following papers

Alexander, C., & Dakos, M. (2020). A critical investigation of cryptocurrency data and analysis. Quantitative Finance, 20(2), 173-188.

Vidal-Tomás, D. (2021). An investigation of cryptocurrency data: The market that never sleeps. Quantitative Finance, 21(12), 2007-2024.

Since these authors showed that there are problems with some of the data sources, which affected the efficiency results of most of the early papers that you mentioned in your study.

Last but not least, to improve the quality of the paper, authors could include a section 4. Future research, underlining future lines that could be interesting, also for the sustainability point of view. This could rise the number of citations of this review. Some of them could be….

Asset tokenisation,

Series, O. B. P. (2020). The tokenisation of assets and potential implications for financial markets. The Secretary General of the OECD.

the development of the metaverse in the web 3,

Vidal-Tomás, D. (2023). The illusion of the metaverse and meta-economy. International Review of Financial Analysis, 86, 102560.

The improvement of Decentralised finance,

Dos Santos, S., Singh, J., Thulasiram, R. K., Kamali, S., Sirico, L., & Loud, L. (2022, June). A new era of blockchain-powered decentralized finance (DeFi)-a review. In 2022 IEEE 46th Annual Computers, Software, and Applications Conference (COMPSAC) (pp. 1286-1292). IEEE.

Author Response

Reviewer #2: The paper titled “The sustainability of investing in cryptocurrencies: A bibliometric analysis of research trends” analyzes the state of the art in the literature about cryptocurrencies and, in particular, focuses on the relationships between financial dimensions and ESG aspects.

The paper is well written and interesting given the growth of the cryptocurrency literature and the emergence of ESG as a “hot topic” in the recent years.

Given this fact, I recommend the publication of this study after revision, in which I suggest some additional papers and minor changes that could improve the quality of the review.

Comments to the Author

1. Page 2, line 98. Authors stated that “This study is unusual because it combines bibliometric techniques and content analysis with an integrative study, allowing us to thoroughly analyze the interplay of two academic fields.” However, in the paper it is possible to read other bibliometric analyses, such as Merediz-Sol, I., & Bariviera, A. F. (2019). Authors should underline here that even though it is unusual, there are other papers in this regard, otherwise it feels rare to find other similar studies in the paper.
2. Page 3, line 123. I do not think that Bitcoin Cash can be considered “the most popular”(nowadays), you could write Ripple (XRP) instead.
3. Page 3, line 138. Authors stated “Previous research and technical studies evaluate the performance of cryptocurrencies mostly using basic metrics like the Sharpe ratio, which adjusts returns for total (specific and diversifiable) risk.” Consider that scholars have also used other simple metrics, such as buy-and-hold returns to evaluate the cryptocurrency market. You could cite, for instance:

Momtaz, P. P. (2021). The pricing and performance of cryptocurrency. The European Journal of Finance, 27(4-5), 367-380. https://doi.org/10.1080/1351847X.2019.1647259

Vidal-Tomás, D. (2023), "Blockchain, sport and fan tokens", Journal of Economic Studies, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JES-02-2023-0094

Momtaz, P. P. (2020). Initial coin offerings. Plos one, 15(5), e0233018. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233018

Page 4, line 196. There is a typo, see “To incorporate all scientific publications”

Page 8, line 312. There is a typo, Corbett is wrong, it should be Corbet.

Page 11, line 423. When addressing the efficiency topic, I think that it is relevant that authors also include the following papers

Alexander, C., & Dakos, M. (2020). A critical investigation of cryptocurrency data and analysis. Quantitative Finance, 20(2), 173-188. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697688.2019.1641347

Vidal-Tomás, D. (2021). An investigation of cryptocurrency data: The market that never sleeps. Quantitative Finance, 21(12), 2007-2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697688.2021.1930124

4. Since these authors showed that there are problems with some of the data sources, which affected the efficiency results of most of the early papers that you mentioned in your study.
5. Last but not least, to improve the quality of the paper, authors could include a section 4. Future research, underlining future lines that could be interesting, also for the sustainability point of view. This could rise the number of citations of this review. Some of them could be….

Asset tokenization,

Series, O. B. P. (2020). The tokenisation of assets and potential implications for financial markets. The Secretary General of the OECD.

the development of the met averse in the web 3,

Vidal-Tomás, D. (2023). The illusion of the metaverse and meta-economy. International Review of Financial Analysis, 86, 102560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2023.102560

The improvement of Decentralized finance,

Dos Santos, S., Singh, J., Thulasiram, R. K., Kamali, S., Sirico, L., & Loud, L. (2022, June). A new era of blockchain-powered decentralized finance (DeFi)-a review. In 2022 IEEE 46th Annual Computers, Software, and Applications Conference (COMPSAC) (pp. 1286-1292). IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/COMPSAC54236.2022.00203

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for your comments and recommendations, which we have considered in this new version of the paper.

1. The sentence has been deleted. Yes, I confirm your words. Thanks for the note
2. Yes it has been replaced thank you
3. Of course I agree with your words. However, these keywords have been chosen so that the highest number of topics in the field of Islamic finance and fintech is obtained. Thus, we arrive at building a strong concrete as a whole and not focusing on individual topics or dedicated to other areas.
4. Other metrics have been added and cited
5. Typographical errors have been corrected and citations added
6. This was addressed and the details of the sources of evidence were mentioned in the methodology section. Thanks for the note
7. The quality of the paper was improved by the work of proof reading. The futuristic lines were confirmed by a number of citations about sustainability.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors incorporated my suggestions. The authors should pay attention to the citations. It should not be in APA style.  References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text (including table captions and figure legends) and listed individually at the end of the manuscript. In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]. For embedded citations in the text with pagination, use both parentheses and brackets to indicate the reference number and page numbers; for example [5] (p. 10). or [6] (pp. 101–105). The reference list should include the full title, as recommended by the ACS style guide. 

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

I hope this letter finds you in good health and spirits. I am writing to express my sincere gratitude for your thoughtful review of my work.

Thank you for your adherence to the Journal Citation Reports guidelines. I appreciate your observation and positive review. I wish you continued success and all the best in your endeavours.

Your insightful feedback and constructive criticism have been invaluable in improving the quality of my work. Your comments have helped me to identify areas that required further clarification and have challenged me to think more deeply about my research.

I am truly grateful for the time and effort you have invested in reviewing my work. Your attention to detail and thoughtful analysis have not only strengthened my manuscript but also improved my skills as a researcher. Your comments have helped me to see my work from a different perspective, and I am confident that the improvements I have made will significantly enhance the value of my contribution to the field.

Once again, thank you for your dedication and commitment to the review process. Your feedback has been instrumental in helping me to improve the quality of my work, and I am extremely grateful for your time and effort.

Sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

No further comments. Paper can be published in its current form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

I hope this letter finds you in good health and spirits. I am writing to express my sincere gratitude for your thoughtful review of my work.

Your insightful feedback and constructive criticism have been invaluable in improving the quality of my work. Your comments have helped me to identify areas that required further clarification and have challenged me to think more deeply about my research.

I am truly grateful for the time and effort you have invested in reviewing my work. Your attention to detail and thoughtful analysis have not only strengthened my manuscript but also improved my skills as a researcher. Your comments have helped me to see my work from a different perspective, and I am confident that the improvements I have made will significantly enhance the value of my contribution to the field.

Once again, thank you for your dedication and commitment to the review process. Your feedback has been instrumental in helping me to improve the quality of my work, and I am extremely grateful for your time and effort.

Sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The author considered my suggestions. 

 Minor editing of English language required