Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Article title:  The use of block chain technology and its reflection in the financial performance of investment projects developed at the Ministry of Sports

After reviewing this paper carefully, I have some comments below:

- The introduction is poorly structured. This section should not be structured. The authors start from 1.1 on page 2, so what does the content from "The importance of investment...." to "...targets at the lowest cost" mean? There should be a structured paper at the end of the introduction section.

- The literature review section of the authors does not meet the requirements. What is the goal of the authors in this section? In this section, the authors need to present relevant theories and empirical evidence to support the research questions. The authors listed previous studies but did not summarize what the previous studies showed and served the research objectives. In addition, the authors also need to update some recent studies relating to firm performance as well as technology. I suggest the authors mention and cite some studies such as Almustafa et al. (2023); Nguyen (2022); Qing et al. (2022); Dang et al (2021), Nguyen (2022) (see references) …

- The discussion of the results needs to be done more carefully. Are the results consistent with theories and previous studies?

- Sections 7 and 8 should be combined into 1 section. This section should summarize the research results, implications, limitations and suggestions for future studies. Authors should not conclude by listing ideas. It is not up to the standards of a scientific paper.

- There are some grammatical errors, which the authors need to check carefully.

 

References

Almustafa, H., et al. (2023). "The impact of COVID-19 on firm risk and performance in MENA countries: Does national governance quality matter?" PloS one 18(2): e0281148.

Dang, V. C. et al. (2021). "Internal corporate governance and stock price crash risk: evidence from Vietnam." Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment: 1-18.

Nguyen, Q. K. (2022). "The Effect of FinTech Development on Financial Stability in an Emerging Market: The Role of Market Discipline." Research in Globalization: 100105.

Qing, L., Chun, D., Ock, Y. S., Dagestani, A. A., & Ma, X. (2022). What myths about green technology innovation and financial performance’s relationship? A bibliometric analysis review. Economies, 10(4), 92.

Nguyen, Q. K. (2022). "The impact of risk governance structure on bank risk management effectiveness: evidence from ASEAN countries." Heliyon: e11192.

           

 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer )1( Comments

We, the authors of Manuscript ID: 2283694 appreciate the two anonymous reviewers’ comments, which helped us to revise the manuscript. Most comments seemed to be fair and reasonable, below are point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments. Finally, an MS Word file of the revised manuscript was attached. We thank the referee for the valuable comments, and suggestions regarding our manuscript.

 

- The introduction is poorly structured. This section should not be structured. The authors start from 1.1 on page 2, so what does the content from "The importance of investment...." to "...targets at the lowest cost" mean? There should be a structured paper at the end of the introduction section.

 Response: Adjustments have been made

- The literature review section of the authors does not meet the requirements. What is the goal of the authors in this section? In this section, the authors need to present relevant theories and empirical evidence to support the research questions. The authors listed previous studies but did not summarize what the previous studies showed and served the research objectives. In addition, the authors also need to update some recent studies relating to firm performance as well as technology. I suggest the authors mention and cite some studies such as Almustafa et al. (2023); Nguyen (2022); Qing et al. (2022); Dang et al (2021), Nguyen (2022) (see references) …

 Response: Amendments were made with references and studies that benefited the research and increased its value

- The discussion of the results needs to be done more carefully. Are the results consistent with theories and previous studies?

 Response: Adjustments have been made

- Sections 7 and 8 should be combined into 1 section. This section should summarize the research results, implications, limitations and suggestions for future studies. Authors should not conclude by listing ideas. It is not up to the standards of a scientific paper.

 Response: Modifications were made incorporating conclusions and future directions

- There are some grammatical errors, which the authors need to check carefully.

 Response: Modifications have been made, This document certifies that the manuscript listed below was edited by Cambridge Proofreading LLC for English grammar, punctuation, spelling,

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BJJZ4Rl57qQHTUJ4D30TqaLibprcNJeH/view?usp=share_link

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is very good survey paper towards a new application domain of Blockchain technology.  Around 300  participants have took part in the study, and the researchers used two questionnaires as tools to collect the data. Its enough for academic study and research. Research questions were addresses with surveyed data very systematically. Phases-wise results are described for future research. Most important finding is  these is a good possibilities that use of digital block chain technology may contribute for predicting the financial  performances of investment projects developed by the Ministry of Sports. So its good study paper.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer )2( Comments

We, the authors of Manuscript ID: 2283694 appreciate the two anonymous reviewers’ comments, which helped us to revise the manuscript. Most comments seemed to be fair and reasonable, below are point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments. Finally, an MS Word file of the revised manuscript was attached. We thank the referee for the valuable comments, and suggestions regarding our manuscript.

 

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

-This is a very good survey paper on a new application domain of Blockchain technology.  Around 300  participants have taken part in the study, and the researchers used two questionnaires as tools to collect the data. It's enough for academic study and research. Research questions were addressed with surveyed data very systematically. Phases-wise results are described for future research. A most important finding is there is a good possibility that the use of digital blockchain technology may contribute to predicting the financial performances of investment projects developed by the Ministry of Sports. So it's a good study paper.

** We thank you, Your Excellency, for that kind praise, which is an incentive for us to move forward in scientific research, and we thank you for your good comments that contributed to clarifying the idea of the study and that contributed to producing the study in a good way.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer )1( Comments

We, the authors of Manuscript ID: 2283694 appreciate the two anonymous reviewers’ comments, which helped us to revise the manuscript. Most comments seemed to be fair and reasonable, below are point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments. Finally, an MS Word file of the revised manuscript was attached. We thank the referee for the valuable comments, and suggestions regarding our manuscript.

 

 

Title: The Use of blockchain technology and its reflection on the financial performance of investment projects developed at the Ministry of Sports

In the article, the authors studied the use of blockchain technology in the financial performance of investment projects developed at the Ministry of Sports using a questionnaire and surveying 300 participants. The title is clear, concise, and suitable for the study. However, the authors must note that

not

ministry of Sports

be separated as block chain. This must be corrected throughout Financial performance of investment projects developed by the

 

Response: The requested changes have been made

Abstract:

1. Although the abstract is clear and concise in explaining the objective of the study, the language used is making it difficult to understand.
2. 
   Rather than using commas and semicolons, it is suggested that the authors break the longer sentences into multiple short sentences to make it easier for the readers to For instance,

the performance of investment projects developed by the Ministry of Sports; the researchers used the descriptive approach (survey study method) as an appropriate method to achieve the objectives of

 Put a full stop after the Ministry of Sports rather than using a semi-colon. The same must be fixed throughout the paper.

Response: The requested changes have been made

Introduction:

3. The first paragraph of the introduction is poorly written. Multiple points are conveyed as one big sentence which makes it difficult to As already mentioned, please break it into multiple shorter sentences.

Response: The requested changes have been made

 

4.  

Response: The modification has been made and remove

5. Page 1, line 37, the authors can introduce Industry 4.0 and Blockchain technology differently with additional details, examples, and references. They can use the below recent papers from reputed journals to explain them,
   15. Raja Santhi, A.; Muthuswamy, P. Influence of Blockchain Technology in Manufacturing Supply Chain and Logistics. Logistics 2022, 6, 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics6010015.
   16. Guo, Y., Liang, C. Blockchain application and outlook in the banking industry. Financ Innov 2, 24 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-016-0034-9.
   17. Raja Santhi, A.; Muthuswamy, P. Pandemic, War, Natural Calamities, and Sustainability: Industry 4.0 Technologies to Overcome Traditional and Contemporary Supply Chain Logistics 2022, 6, 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics6040081.
   18. Fanning, K. and Centers, D.P. (2016), Blockchain and Its Coming Impact on Financial J. Corp. Acct. Fin, 27: 53-57. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcaf.22179.
   19. Raja Santhi, Muthuswamy, P. Industry 5.0 or Industry 4.0S? Introduction to industry

4.0 and a peek into the prospective industry 5.0 technologies. Int J Interact Des Manuf 17, 947  979 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-023-01217-8.

17. Treleaven P., Brown R.G., Yang D. Blockchain Technology in Finance, in Computer, IEEE, 2017, vol. 50, no. 9, pp. 14-17. doi: 10.1109/MC.2017.3571047.

Response: The amendments were made and the references and studies proposed by you were used, which contributed to enriching and clarifying the study. We thank you for that.

6. Every new sentence must start with capital letters. It is not clear why the authors have missed this basic sentence etiquette. For instance, on page 1, line 44, line 46, line 52, and line 58, the sentence starts with small letters which is

Response: Adjustments have been made

7. Page 2, line 48, however, as of 2018, very few of these initiatives why the statistics were considered only up to 2018, which is more than 5 years old.
8. Blockchain technology can contribute to increasing the value of institutions due to its ability to create new business models new business models.

Response: Adjustments have been made

9. Page 2, line 99, the benefits of blockchain technology include its ability to record, store, and retrieve statements, thus reducing the cost of preparing them in the long term necessarily reduce the cost. It is suggested that the authors read the below paper to understand the financial implications of using blockchain and rephrase the sentence suitably by citing the below work,
   15. Raja Santhi, A.; Muthuswamy, P. Influence of Blockchain Technology in Manufacturing Supply Chain and Logistics. Logistics 2022, 6, 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics6010015.

Response: Adjustments have been made

10. In order to survive and succeed in a competitive environment, organizations are increasingly seeking new ways to create value using technology, which has increased the quantity and the importance of data, as well as the use of blockchain technology in many areas

competitive environment and how it can create value? New technology does not necessarily mean the current system is bad and only blockchain can provide better customer service, improve operational performances, and increase revenue as stated by the authors. The technology is still immature, and it is recommended that the authors read the already suggested paper in point 9 to understand the complexities of implementing blockchain.

Response: Adjustments have been made

11. hence, the study draws attention to what the implementation of blockchain technology can achieve in terms of improving financial performance can be used to track the financials as it is a distributed ledger, but it cannot improve the financial

Response: We agree with you on that, but the purpose is that through tracking, errors are avoided and transparency is established, and thus performance is improved. This was the purpose of that or putting that paragraph

12. Page 3, lines 136 to 138, Same as point

Response: Adjustments have been made

Body of manuscript:

13. Page 6, line 239, Please mention the dates clearly as 12 April 2022 to 29 May 2022, as it looks the Same in line 241 as well.

Response: Adjustments have been made

14. Page 6, section 3, the second paragraph (lines 247-254) is a repeat of the first paragraph (lines 239- 246). Please fix

Response: Adjustments have been made With apologies for this error and thanks to your honour.

The surveyed participants don't need to be aware of the pros and cons of blockchain technology as all of them are from sports or administrative backgrounds. However, only the people who work on such advanced technology can tell its real pros and cons. So, the results may be completely different if few participants who work on blockchain technology that are aware of the complexities, cost, technological infrastructure, and training required to implement the technology, were included in the survey. Hence an additional paragraph or a new section explaining the assumptions made, limitations of the study, and future directions are mandatory.

Response: Adjustments have been made

Conclusions:

8. The conclusion is vague and written as short bullet points answering only the research
9. Rather, it should be detailed and descriptive. It should start with a brief objective and background about the study, a statement explaining how the study was conducted, and then finally the results of the study. Hence it is suggested to rewrite the conclusions. The authors can refer few already published survey papers to get an understanding of how to write conclusions for such

Response: Adjustments have been made

References:

10. The references are recent and sufficient for the study. However, it is suggested to add additional recent literature on Industry 4.0 and Blockchain technology from reputed journals, as suggested in point 5.

Response: Adjustments have been made

Overall feedback:

Although the objective of the study is good, the presentation (selection of non-technical words throughout the study, typos, and language errors) must be improved as the paper would be referred to by scholars throughout the globe.

In many places, the language is too difficult to understand the concepts that the authors are trying to explain due to the usage of longer sentences. Hence, intensive proofreading and language editing is required. Especially longer sentences must be broken down into multiple smaller sentences.

This is another article that hypothesizes the application of Blockchain. However, the financial performance of investment projects can be tracked in many ways, and it is not necessary to use Blockchain.

We thank you for your comments and suggestions, which contributed to the conclusion of the study in a very good, distinguished and elegant way. All comments and suggestions that made clear to the researcher's many points that were absent from our minds were benefite

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This version is better and can be published

Author Response

Response to Reviewer )1( Comments

We, the authors of Manuscript ID: 2283694 appreciate the two anonymous reviewers’ comments, which helped us to revise the manuscript. Most comments seemed to be fair and reasonable, below are point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments. Finally, an MS Word file of the revised manuscript was attached. We thank the referee for the valuable comments, and suggestions regarding our manuscript.

 

 

** We thank you, Your Excellency, for that kind praise, which is an incentive for us to move forward in scientific research, and we thank you for your good comments that contributed to clarifying the idea of the study and that contributed to producing the study in a good way.

Reviewer 3 Report

Please check the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer )3( Comments

We, the authors of Manuscript ID: 2283694 appreciate the two anonymous reviewers’ comments, which helped us to revise the manuscript. Most comments seemed to be fair and reasonable, below are point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments. Finally, an MS Word file of the revised manuscript was attached. We thank the referee for the valuable comments, and suggestions regarding our manuscript.

 

1. please change the words” digital blockchain” to “blockchain”, throughout the manuscript.

Response: Changes have been made

 

2. Please remove the copyright symbol in line 34.

Response: Changes have been made

 

3. Change the “culprit” in line 50, as it is not a technical word to be used in research articles “Miscreant” or “ malicious node” may be a more suitable word.

Response: Changes have been made.

 

4. The one long sentence in lines 57 to 62 can be rephrased into multiple smaller sentences to improve

clarity.

Response: Adjustments have been made.

5. Still, there are too many long sentences throughout the manuscript. Please break them into multiple

smaller sentences to improve clarity.

Response: Adjustments have been made.

 

6. There is an open bracket in line 112 without any reference number added to it. Please fix it.

Response: Adjustments have been made.

 

7. Please recheck the dates once again in lines 253 to 255. Is the baseline study conducted after

exploratory study?

Response: Sir, an exploratory study was conducted, and then a basic study was conducted.

 

8. The surveyed participants don't need to be aware of the pros and cons of blockchain technology as

all of them are from sports or administrative backgrounds. However, only those working on

such advanced technology can tell its real pros and cons. So, the results may be completely different

if few participants who work on blockchain technology aware of the complexities, cost,

technological infrastructure, and training required to implement the technology, were included in

the survey. Hence an additional paragraph or a new section explaining this point as a limitation

must be added to the article.

Response: Adjustments have been made, Added in Conclusion and Limitations, Future directions.

 

9. There are a lot of typos throughout the manuscript which must be fixed before publication.

Response: Corrections have been made throughout the manuscript.

 

 

We thank you for your interest and efforts in bringing the manuscript to this model and your wise opinions that helped us and provided us with a lot of information and knowledge that opened our minds. Thanks and appreciation to you for the information that raised the value of the study.