Re-Examining Bitcoin’s Price–Volume Relationship: A Time-Varying Spectral Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The idea of the article "Re-examining Bitcoin’s price-volume relationship: a time-varying spectral analysis" is important and interesting. There are some critical remarks, which could be corrected. Research Methodology is missing, there are missing object, subject, hypothesis. Please check the data in table one again. I think there are errors in the numbers. Figure 4 there is a need for more analysis and comments. It is not clear to the reader what is meant.  The consequences of the study should be author's and not those of other authors. 

The level of English is acceptable with small adjustments.

Author Response

The authors are grateful for the comments provided. We believe that we have addressed them adequately. The methodology is discussed in section 3 (Materials and Methods) from lines 312 to 386. The data in table 1 has been amended. The Bitcoin volume numbers are very large, and some are written more compactly using the exponential function (“E”). For instance, the number 1.66E+10 is 16.6 billion.  Objectives and hypotheses that were tested are included in the introduction section on lines 80 o 85.  More explanation has been added for the result in figure 4 to make it clear for the readers. With regards to the consequences of the study, these are based on the findings. The reference (Youssef, 2022) is added to support the findings.

Reviewer 2 Report

See the attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Good but can be improved :)

Author Response

The authors are grateful for the comments provided. We believe that we have addressed them adequately. The comments are addressed as follows:

1. The abstract has been shortened by taking out the part on the implications of the study. The amended abstract focuses on the objectives of the study and the results. The number of words is in line with the journal instructions.
2. An explanation of market efficiency or inefficiencies has been added in lines 65 to 70.
3. The phrase “Ukraine-Russia conflict” has been changed to “Ukraine-Russia war” (line 75).
4. With regards to the statement that VAR, VECM and ARDL are “linear in nature”, we meant that current studies have only used those techniques in a linear set up. The wording has been changed to make it clearer in line 90.
5. The abbreviations have been defined and explained upon first appearance as suggested. (Lines 87 to 89)
6. The objectives and contributions have been added in the introduction section. Objectives and hypotheses are in lines 80 to 85, The contribution is from lines 86 to 110.
7. The authors have added the suggested studies and others that used Machine Learning techniques in the literature review (Lines 286-292).
8. The missing references have been added to the reference list. The added references have been highlighted in yellow.
9. The study only used two variables (Bitcoin price and volume). Therefore, we felt that a table was not necessary. An explanation of the data has been provided in the “Data and results" section (lines 391 to 392)
10. The discussion of the results was included in the section “Implications of the results”. We have decided to rename this section “Discussion”. The section discusses the results and highlights the implications of the findings (Lines 511 to 550).
11. We added a paragraph on the delimitations of the study as well as an area of future research at the end of the article (Lines 578 to 585).
12. The references have been standardized according to the guidelines of the Journal. For some articles the page numbers are not included in the journals, instead, there is an article number.
13. The authors have proofread the article to further identify and fix grammatical errors.