Blockchain Technology Adoption for Disrupting FinTech Functionalities: A Systematic Literature Review for Corporate Management, Supply Chain, Banking Industry, and Stock Markets

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper touches upon a very interesting topic, which is worth research and writing. The author's analysis is based on literature review instead of any sound research methodology. This is a quite odd research paper in terms of the research method though the author seems to exhaust literature review (which can be picked up on a biased basis). The conclusion seems self-judging and self-arguing without solid evidence or logial arguments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing is fine.

Author Response

Dear Referee:

I would like to inform you that the manuscript was rewritten from the beginning following your guidance for reconstruction incorporating solid evidence and logical arguments apart from the self-judging assumptions (key-findings).

Hence, according to your remarks, evidence-based content classification analysis and statistics-based commentary were added after Tables 5, 6, and 7.  

Kind regards!

The manuscript author

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A systematic survey on blockchain applications could be very useful for researchers and practitioners in blockchain applications in business and finance. This is a topic with a lot of dispersed and technical literature, and for a researcher/manager interested in an operational point of view and a panoramic vision, it is very useful. However, the paper presents different drawbacks that suggest a deep revision of the paper. The order does not imply importance.

The authors indicate in the abstract that they conduct a systematic review. However, the paper is classified as an article, and the review is conducted without any clear protocol. We do not know which databases have been consulted, what inclusion and exclusion criteria have been followed, the keywords used, and how they have been combined, etc. For example, FYI see:

Kraus, S., Breier, M., Lim, W. M., Dabić, M., Kumar, S., Kanbach, D., ... & Ferreira, J. J. (2022). Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic practice. Review of Managerial Science, 16(8), 2577-2595.

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. bmj, 372.

The research questions should go in the last paragraph of the introduction and should be more concise. Ultimately, the objective is to present the main applications of BCT in certain issues related to business and finance management.

The "methodology" section, as it is developed, does not make sense. This involves the title (in which the text in parentheses does not make sense) and the text: it is not in the methodology where the applications of BCT analyzed should be explained. Here, the protocol followed in the systematic review should be indicated.

In the methodology, there are many nonsensical phrases, seemingly resulting from careless cut and paste. For example:

"My research improves the effectiveness of supply chain finance and optimizes the current financial credit system for the supply chain." --> I suppose what has the potential to improve the financial credit system and supply chain management is the BCT, not the text.

"The following research gaps are being attempted to be filled by this study: We combine a variety of qualitative research techniques to do an extensive investigation of organizational values and blockchain-related hurdles in general. Owing to the paucity of research on the benefits and challenges of blockchain technology in the banking sector, we examined the general benefits and challenges to identify the key elements of blockchain technology that will help or impede the adoption of blockchain in business settings." --> What are these qualitative research techniques?

"To manage and achieve access control over shared transaction information in the supply chain, we suggest a blockchain-based approach, which aims to solve the issues of comprehensive credit investigation data and privacy protection. In order to address the issues of massive credit investigation data and credit investigation data privacy protection, our model implements a consensus mechanism. This allows us to achieve access control and shared data chain management." --> This work does not describe any “blockchain-based” system for credit investigation.

"To create the final stock price bubble index, we first use the comprehensive analysis method to superimpose some fundamental values and investor behavior characteristics, such as the stock price fluctuation index; second, we use the principal component method to create a financial security index that is consistent with prior research and in line with basic economic reality; finally, we use the novel MS-VAR model to examine whether the stock price bubble will have an impact on financial security and summarize the rhythm and correlation of the two parties under various regimes." Who are “we”? This paper did nothing about this and also has no direct relation with BCT.

Acronyms not defined (e.g., FT).

First-person usage should be avoided, especially in the singular form (I try…).

The results should explain how many papers were initially considered, which were screened, and which were finally considered, etc. It may also indicate the outlets/countries/temporal evolution of the scientific production. Additionally, regarding the number of citations, we do not know which database this quantity is obtained from.

The list of key findings that the authors derive in each of the 6 applications are, in many cases, very generic, such as “BCA/FT provides anonymity, security, privacy, and transparency.” They should be merged with the text that answers the research questions and eliminate the list, which makes the text very scattered. In fact, some applications (“digital transformation” and “information sharing”) are not specific applications in management and finance but are transversal to financial markets, the banking industry, etc.

The discussion should be developed separately.

The theoretical and practical implications are very weak. They should be expanded.

The “main contribution” does not require a separate section, as it should be highlighted in the conclusion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Revise the meaning of several phrases. For example, what is a "motivating technology?

Author Response

 Dear Referee:

I would like to inform you that the manuscript was rewritten from the beginning and hopefully your raised issues were answered. 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1. The authors indicate in the abstract that they conduct a systematic review. However, the paper is classified as an article, and the review is conducted without any clear protocol. We do not know which databases have been consulted, what inclusion and exclusion criteria have been followed, the keywords used, and how they have been combined, etc. For example, FYI see:

Kraus, S., Breier, M., Lim, W. M., Dabić, M., Kumar, S., Kanbach, D., ... & Ferreira, J. J. (2022). Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic practice. Review of Managerial Science, 16(8), 2577-2595.

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. bmj, 372.

Response to comment 1:  In the revised manuscript the proposed SLR follows a customized PRISMA-adapted protocol. Additionally, the search databases, the search keywords, and the eligibility (inclusion and exclusion) criteria have been defined. The references have been extended to include additional SLR and PRISMA protocol citations.

 

Comment 2. The research questions should go in the last paragraph of the introduction and should be more concise. Ultimately, the objective is to present the main applications of BCT in certain issues related to business and finance management.

Response to comment 2: The manuscript’s structure regarding the “Introduction” and the “research questions RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3”, has been changed.

 

Comment 3. The "methodology" section, as it is developed, does not make sense. This involves the title (in which the text in parentheses does not make sense) and the text: it is not in the methodology where the applications of BCT analyzed should be explained. Here, the protocol followed in the systematic review should be indicated.

Response to comment 3. The manuscript’s structure regarding “Methodology”) has been changed and the proposed SLR follows a customized PRISMA-adapted protocol (described in detail).

 

Comment 4. In the methodology, there are many nonsensical phrases, seemingly resulting from careless cut and paste. For example: "My research improves the effectiveness of supply chain finance and optimizes the current financial credit system for the supply chain." --> I suppose what has the potential to improve the financial credit system and supply chain management is the BCT, not the text.

 

"The following research gaps are being attempted to be filled by this study: We combine a variety of qualitative research techniques to do an extensive investigation of organizational values and blockchain-related hurdles in general. Owing to the paucity of research on the benefits and challenges of blockchain technology in the banking sector, we examined the general benefits and challenges to identify the key elements of blockchain technology that will help or impede the adoption of blockchain in business settings." --> What are these qualitative research techniques?

"To manage and achieve access control over shared transaction information in the supply chain, we suggest a blockchain-based approach, which aims to solve the issues of comprehensive credit investigation data and privacy protection. In order to address the issues of massive credit investigation data and credit investigation data privacy protection, our model implements a consensus mechanism. This allows us to achieve access control and shared data chain management." --> This work does not describe any “blockchain-based” system for credit investigation.

"To create the final stock price bubble index, we first use the comprehensive analysis method to superimpose some fundamental values and investor behavior characteristics, such as the stock price fluctuation index; second, we use the principal component method to create a financial security index that is consistent with prior research and in line with basic economic reality; finally, we use the novel MS-VAR model to examine whether the stock price bubble will have an impact on financial security and summarize the rhythm and correlation of the two parties under various regimes." Who are “we”? This paper did nothing about this and also has no direct relation with BCT.

 

Response to comment 4. The text with the nonsensical phrases has been rewritten and has been moved to Introduction (1.1. BCA/FinTech application domain areas). Thank you!

 

Comment 5. Acronyms not defined (e.g., FT).

Response to comment 5. In the revised version all acronyms have been defined.

 

Comment 6. First-person usage should be avoided, especially in the singular form (I try…).

Response to comment 5. In the revised version first-person reasoning is avoided.

 

Comment 7. The results should explain how many papers were initially considered, which were screened, and which were finally considered, etc. It may also indicate the outlets/countries/temporal evolution of the scientific production.  Additionally, regarding the number of citations, we do not know which database this quantity is obtained from.

Response to comment 7. The proposed SLR is referred to as four instead of six Tables (the list is eliminated to four domain application areas/FinTech Sectors), and more critical PRISMA-suggested information is included (selection and screening numbers per study from the Google Scholar database,  etc.).

 

 

 

Comment 8. The list of key findings that the authors derive in each of the 6 applications are, in many cases, very generic, such as “BCA/FT provides anonymity, security, privacy, and transparency.” They should be merged with the text that answers the research questions and eliminate the list, which makes the text very scattered. In fact, some applications (“digital transformation” and “information sharing”) are not specific applications in management and finance but are transversal to financial markets, the banking industry, etc.

Response to comment 8. In the revised manuscript, the proposed SLR is referred to as four instead of six Tables (the list is eliminated to four domain application areas/FinTech Sectors), and more critical PRISMA-suggested information is included (selection and screening numbers per study, etc.).

Additionally, two new sub-sections were added in Section 4 (4.5. Derived Quantitative Assessment, and 4.6. Statistics) combined with two new Tables and Figures and short content classification and spatial-temporal evolution statistics are provided.

 

Comment 9. The discussion should be developed separately.

Response to comment 9. In the revised manuscript the “Discussion” has been developed separately (5. Discussion).  

 

Comment 10. The theoretical and practical implications are very weak. They should be expanded.

Response to comment 10. The Discussion and Conclusion Sections were rewritten from scratch with a more detailed description of the “implications”.

 

Comment 11. The “main contribution” does not require a separate section, as it should be highlighted in the conclusion.

Response to comment 11. The “main contribution” has been moved to the “Conclusions”.

 

Comment 12. Comments on the Quality of English Language: Revise the meaning of several phrases. For example, what is a "motivating technology?

Response to comment 12. In the revised manuscript the English language issues have been fixed.

 

Kind regards!

The manuscript author

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

·      The present work presents a current issue in an interesting way for the scientific community.

·      The current abstract is descriptive one. It should be written in quantitative way.

·      The introduction needs elaboration. It should set out the context, summarize recent research related to the topic, highlights gap in current literature, and should thoroughly introduce the work of the paper.

·      The aim and novelty of this study should be mentioned clearly in the end of the introduction.

·      The empirical results are presented coherently, in a documented way.

·      Please check if all references have been included and if there are no interpretation errors.

·      The paper should discuss what are the functionalities and channels through which ESG/DEI can affect corporate performance. Additionally, the paper should discuss FinTech/Blockchain adoption dimensions.

·      Please talk about the limitations and future work more in detail in the conclusion section

·      In conclusion, I consider that the paper can be published in present form.

 

I hope these comments and suggestions can help for  the author scientific development

Author Response

Dear Referee:

 

I would like to inform you that the manuscript was rewritten from the beginning following your guidance for reconstruction incorporating quantitative reasoning.

 

According to your remarks, the aim, novelty, limitations, and future work are described in detail in this revised manuscript version.

 

Finally, I have checked the in-text citations/references connection and certify that all bibliographic sources are included.

Kind regards!

The manuscript author

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The question the author may clarify is whether the literature has been exhausted. There is no way to exhausting all the literature. Then the author may justify the approach taken in the research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The author may engage a native speaker to review and revise the draft.

Author Response

Dear Referee:

 

Comments and Suggestions for the Author

 

Comment 1.  The question the author may clarify is whether the literature has been exhausted. There is no way to exhausting all the literature. Then the author may justify the approach taken in the research.

Response to comment 1:  In the revised manuscript, a new Section was added (4. Research Strategy for Literature Exhausting) and five literature research techniques justifying literature exhaustion are presented.

 

Comment 2. Comments on the Quality of English Language: The author may engage a native speaker to review and revise the draft.

 Response to comment 2: A native English language professional edited the manuscript and improved its syntax by checking many aspects of writing (sentence structure, transitions, parallelism, sentence variety, and conciseness).

Kind regards!

The manuscript author

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The comments have been considered in this new version, that has been improved.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A last revision of English may needed. It can be done during the proofreading.

Author Response

Dear Referee:

 

Comments and Suggestions for the Author

 Comment 1.  Comments on the Quality of English Language: A last revision of English may needed. It can be done during the proofreading.

Response to comment 1:   A native English language professional edited the manuscript and improved its syntax by checking many aspects of writing (sentence structure, transitions, parallelism, sentence variety, and conciseness).

Kind regards!

The manuscript author