Tracing Knowledge Diffusion Trajectories in Scholarly Bitcoin Research: Co-Word and Main Path Analyses
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
First, I appreciate the authors developing this study concerning the knowledge diffusion trajectories in Bitcoin research. However, this manuscript needs numerous careful modifications. Specifically, I have the following remarks.
- In the abstract, the aim of the study and the research gap(s) are not that clear. Please clarify it.
- The introduction section is a bit dry. It's not that catchy, also. The authors should have mentioned some overall statistical shreds of evidence on Bitcoin to depict its importance in the research domain.
- In my opinion, the most critical issue of this paper is its weaknesses in methods. The review used data from the Scopus database, spanning 1970 to 2023. The concept of Bitcoin was nowhere near in 1970. However, in the introduction section, it has been mentioned that the creation was done by the pseudonymous entity Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008. Therefore, I am afraid it's contradictory.
- 4,123 academic articles were analyzed. The number is relatively high since the authors didn't follow the required filtration process. It seems like they took all the RIS information from all the papers they found. Therefore, the authors need to follow and show the PRISMA flowchart for this study.
- Hence, reanalysis is required by identifying the criteria, synthesis technique, and quality assessment of bibliometric data. Because the current result may not depict the actual scenario.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find attached our answers to your comments.
Kind regards,
Abderahman
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper proposes a semantical analysis of the literature on bitcoin using textometric techniques. The paper is well structured and written and addresses a very interesting question with a powerful and original methodology. Yet, I do have some comments and questions in order to improve the paper. First, concerning the choice of the selected papers for the literature review, it is said line 119, that the covered period is from 1970 to 2023. As bitcoin appeared only in 2008, what is the point beginning before 2008 or 2009? And indeed, in the database, only papers after 2011 appear on the bitcoin topic. Second, I don't know the softwares used, but it could be interesting and important to justify the choices. On which criteria? Why? And the way the results are compiled shoud be more detailed and described. As far as I know, in textometry, the results can be very sensitive to the default values and algorithms of the sofwares. Therefore, either robustness checks while varying the parameters are needed, or to compare the results obtained with other softwares. In particular, line 198 it is said that the default value of 25 is selected. What does it change if this value differs? Third, the interpretations of the results are too detailed. It is difficult for the reader to enter into such precised considerations of the literature. It would be more powerful to stress the main striking points. In the same way, the beginning of the discussion resumes too much the already detailed results and should be reduced. Fourth, concerning the theoretical implications, it is strange to me that the conclusion is that the already investigated fields must be deepenned. I would rather have liked to know which field hasn't be yet investigated and where the literature didn't go enough. Finally, the conclusion militates for an enlargement of the corpus taking into account other databases and types of publications. If the idea is honourable, it is not very inspiring and original. It would may be more interesting to look for low signals, in order to know where the research wasn't investigating enough and to give new ideas on the bitcoin topics for researchers, may be in using Artificial Intelligency to detect them?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find attached our answers to your comments.
Kind regards,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear author(s), first and foremost, I would like to express my pleasure in reading your paper. Bitcoin is a prominent and intriguing subject within the academic sphere.
I am particularly interested in understanding better how bitcoin is being perceived by society, and an article designed with this focus plays a significant role, at least considering the academic scenario.
The abstract seems to lack details of the results and implications of your findings. Particularly for the implications, it is imperative to indicate the literature gaps based on your review.
Your introduction encompasses almost all pertinent aspects. I appreciate your discourse on co-word analysis in the context of existing review literature. However, I would recommend a concluding paragraph highlighting key findings, their contributions, and significance to the current literature.
I kindly request that you revise the term "meticulously" at the beginning of section 2.1. It is advised to eliminate unnecessary evaluative language.
The rationale for choosing the starting period as 1970 is unclear, especially given that the white paper was published at the end of 2008. Could you please clarify this?
Your section 4.2 is commendable. It offers substantial contributions. My compliments extend to section 4.3 as well.
The proposed directions for future research are commendable and effectively conclude the paper, providing substantial value to readers seeking a quick overview of the existing literature and its gaps. Nonetheless, I would strongly recommend that these recommendations be cited both in the introduction and the abstract.
Not applicable.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find attached our answers to your comments.
Kind regards,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for sending the revised version of the paper back to me. The authors have improved the article by addressing the earlier comments. Besides, sufficient explanations have also been drawn.
Minor editing of English language required.
