Cryptocurrencies’ Impact on Accounting: Bibliometric Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGiven the low number of publications analysed (29), the employ of bibliometric methodologies is not appropriate in this study.
The contribution is very limited.
The literature review section is underdeveloped, and the reader cannot get insights into the main issues regarding accounting for cryptocurrencies.
In lines 93-94 authors say: “It is true that crypto assets accounting is complex because they have unique characteristics that differ from traditional financial assets”. From the accounting perspective, crypto assets are not, in general, financial assets.
Minor comments:
Line 75 IFRS is mentioned, this must be indicated as an example.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNo comments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe literature review lacks depth, is ad hoc, and lacks flow. I suggest that the authors coherently review the existing literature. The authors may use subheadings to summarize different aspects of the impact of cryptocurrencies on accounting. Similarly, there is no concrete suggestion for avenues for future research. The authors should strengthen the conclusions, too.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper contains a bibliometric review analyzing the impact of cryptocurrencies on accounting. The authors categorize findings into four main themes: financial accounting, managerial accounting, taxation accounting, and auditing. Utilizes VOSviewer, Biblioshiny, and MS Excel for data visualization and analysis. This research suggests the need for periodic updates due to the constantly evolving landscape of cryptocurrency accounting. In summary, the study provides a comprehensive look at how cryptocurrency transactions are integrated into legal accounting frameworks and tax compliance, highlighting the innovation and growing interest in this research area.
The paper offers a detailed bibliometric review of cryptocurrency accounting literature, highlighting key themes and trends. Utilizes a combination of software tools for data analysis, ensuring a thorough examination of the subject matter. This research is original and it categorizes findings into four main themes related to accounting, providing a structured overview of the field.
The study acknowledges a limitation in dataset coverage, suggesting the need for periodic updates to maintain relevance and the others database as Scopus. I have some doubts about the methodology followed and the database.
It would be interesting to enter the scopus database and compare the papers by adding those that do not appear in Wos. have the authors carried out this process or how can they justify not using other databases?
Why is the period 2017 selected, which could perfectly well have been studied much earlier, e.g. 2009?
More information is needed to publish this paper
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAim of the paper, its main contributions and strengths
The paper explores the cryptocurrency accounting (CA) literature (i.e. the interaction of cryptocurrencies with accounting), through a bibliometric review. It uses the Web of Science Core collection database and identifies 29 articles on CA, which the paper then examines ito themes, authors, citations, geographical locations and institutions.
General concept comments
A related paper on a similar topic was found when doing a quick Google Scholar search:
Lardo, A., Corsi, K., Varma, A. and Mancini, D. (2022), "Exploring blockchain in the accounting domain: a bibliometric analysis", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 35 No. 9, pp. 204-233. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-10-2020-4995
I acknowledge that Blockchain is slightly different from cryptocurrencies, and thus considering the interaction of Cryptocurrencies and Accounting might still be worthwhile investigating through a bibliometric review. However, I have a major concern regarding the paper under review, esp. after reading Lardo et al. (2022): examining only 29 papers (the Lardo paper considered 120 papers and 189 total documents) is too few to render the review complete and generate sufficient insights into the CA literature.
Either another database should be added (Lardo used Scopus), or the search terms employed should be expanded (Lardo used “((“Blockchain” OR “Cryptocurrency” OR “Smart Contract” OR “Initial Coin Offering” OR “Bitcoin”) AND (“Account*”), while the paper under review only used “cryptocurrency accounting” but no synonyms for this term.
As a result, the entire time while I was reading I felt that voices have been excluded – for example a recent paper on cryptocurrency accounting in the Journal of Risk and Financial Management was not picked up. For the paper to be publishable, the currently excluded voices should be brought in – I think the search terms should be expanded.
In general I would have liked more information of what has been said about auditing, management accounting and tax effects of cryptocurrency, as these have been less researched per your analysis.
Specific comments
The Lardo et al. (2022) paper could be considered to improve the overall structuring of the paper under review.
Some other comments:
- Page 1 Line 29 “accounting for cryptocurrencies” should be cryptocurrency accounting for the abbreviation to make sense.
- Page 1: References should be included to back the claims made in the first two paragraphs.
- The linking words used don’t always make sense, e.g. “Thus” on page 2 line 62 does not work there
- Page 2 Line 84 and 85: Brackets are needed for the two references
- Page 3 Line 138 WoS not defined – only defined on page 5
- Bottom of page 8 versus Figure 5 – the numbers in the discussion at the bottom of page 8 and in Figure 5 do not agree (e.g. JFRM stated as having two articles but 1 in Figure 5)
- Page 10 11; Figure 6 and 8 – doesn’t is make sense to combine cryptocurrencies and cryptocurrency? As the one is merely the plural of the other?
- Page 10 and 11: Table 3 is named Tabel 3
- Figure 9 does not contain the top cited authors (discussion below the Figure)
- Figure 11 does not show the number of publications from countries other than the US and China, which are discussed above it? (e.g UK with 81 citations?)
- The discussion on page 16 lines 450-455 does not agree (in numbers) with the discussion on page 18 lines 489-498. E.g. China is said to have 342 citations on page 18, but only 5 on page 16. Australia is said to have 10 on page 16 but 60 on page 18?
- United Kingdom is named England in some places, but these are not synonyms
Comments on the Quality of English Language
It is adequate, but some minor edits are needed. E.g. linking words are not always the correct ones; some missing words (for example, where it should be "indexed in XYZ", the "in" is missing).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGiven the low number of publications analysed (48), the study's use of bibliometric methodologies is inappropriate.
The literature review section has increased in extension but has not improved significantly in deep analysis and quality. Therefore, as in the previous version, the reader cannot get insights into the main issues regarding accounting for cryptocurrencies.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo Comments
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease find my comments attached.
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Minor changes required (noted in comments).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
