REA, Triple-Entry Accounting and Blockchain: Converging Paths to Shared Ledger Systems
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments:
· The title is appropriate, clear and straight to the point
· The abstract fits its purpose
· Keywords: I would suggest not to include “single source of truth” and to consider to include “shared ledger systems”
· In the Introduction, it is not acceptable to write “At this point, we want to warn the reader that…”; please, find another way to avoid “warnings”. In the same sentence, authors use (as in many other situations), double quotation marks in words like ‘entry’ or ‘historical’: please, keep in mind that if you use double quotation marks, it means that you are making a citation and there has to be a bibliographic reference; if not, then use single quotation marks – please verify the entire text
· Also, authors use many words in italics and I find no reason to do so: why not single quotation marks, again?
· On page 11, authors write “Pacioli invented double-entry accounting in 1494”; however, accounting historians have already proved that this is not true and my suggestion is to rephrase the affirmation. When authors mention “But this story suffers from a number of problems”, they should mention this particular problem
· Authors emphasize Todd Boyle’s affirmations and place them outside of the paragraphs: I suggest that they may be included inside the paragraphs considering that they are writing a paper and not a book
· The Discussion sections falls short and should incorporate thoughts and conclusions that were drawn in previous sections; also, I miss the reference to experiences made by practitioners in using these methodologies: they would enrich the discussion
· Finally, I suggest that authors highlight its contribution, indicating clearly why his research is important and why it will add to the literature – I suggest a independent topic called ‘Contribution’ to address authors contribution, motivation and implications of their paper
· And what about paper limitations and future research on the matter? Authors fail to address this, also.
Author Response
Comments:
- The title is appropriate, clear and straight to the point
- The abstract fits its purpose
- Keywords: I would suggest not to include “single source of truth” and to consider to include “shared ledger systems”
Implemented
- In the Introduction, it is not acceptable to write “At this point, we want to warn the reader that…”; please, find another way to avoid “warnings”. In the same sentence, authors use (as in many other situations), double quotation marks in words like ‘entry’ or ‘historical’: please, keep in mind that if you use double quotation marks, it means that you are making a citation and there has to be a bibliographic reference; if not, then use single quotation marks – please verify the entire text
Implemented
- Also, authors use many words in italics and I find no reason to do so: why not single quotation marks, again?
Implemented
- On page 11, authors write “Pacioli invented double-entry accounting in 1494”; however, accounting historians have already proved that this is not true and my suggestion is to rephrase the affirmation. When authors mention “But this story suffers from a number of problems”, they should mention this particular problem
Implemented
- Authors emphasize Todd Boyle’s affirmations and place them outside of the paragraphs: I suggest that they may be included inside the paragraphs considering that they are writing a paper and not a book
Implemented
- The Discussion sections falls short and should incorporate thoughts and conclusions that were drawn in previous sections; also, I miss the reference to experiences made by practitioners in using these methodologies: they would enrich the discussion
Implemented
- Finally, I suggest that authors highlight its contribution, indicating clearly why his research is important and why it will add to the literature – I suggest a independent topic called ‘Contribution’ to address authors contribution, motivation and implications of their paper
Implemented
- And what about paper limitations and future research on the matter? Authors fail to address this, also.
Implemented
Reviewer 2 Report
A very well written and very informative paper. Thought that Bitcoin theory might have been impacted by TEA/REA is interesting and logical.
The paper shows how the REA framework had a certain influence over independent streams of research in the field of TEA, and how this interaction can be traced to the present incarnation of shared ledger systems in blockchain. The gap that the paper fills is the tracing of the historical importance of REA/TEA and its possible impact on crypto paper. There is no particular methodology except that all papers to trace the ignored part of the accounting history have been duly acknowledged. Also, the influence of each individual contributing to this development, correct common misconceptions and map out how the paths of REA, TEA and blockchain overlap in the realm of shared ledger systems have been explained well. The authors have put together a good story and unsung history of accounting, using a figure with timeline which is both interesting and informative. References do provide credit to the originators of the concepts of TEA/REA.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
The title is acceptable. This paper conducts a genealogical analysis of shared ledger systems, in particular tracing the development of TEA. The topic is original, however, the authors need to state the gap and elaborate on the problem of the study. The authors show how the REA framework had a certain influence over independent streams of research in the field of TEA. Few improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology; writing a section dedicated to the methodology of the study. The conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.
and do they address the main question posed
Title\ please do not use shortcuts in the title, instead use the complete term.
abstract\ The abstract needs some improvements. Please include the objective, gap, problem of the statement, results, and main conclusion in the abstract.
please follow the journal template.
please follow the referencing style.
Author Response
The title is acceptable. This paper conducts a genealogical analysis of shared ledger systems, in particular tracing the development of TEA. The topic is original, however, the authors need to state the gap and elaborate on the problem of the study.
Implemented
The authors show how the REA framework had a certain influence over independent streams of research in the field of TEA. Few improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology; writing a section dedicated to the methodology of the study.
Implemented.
The conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.and do they address the main question posed
Title\ please do not use shortcuts in the title, instead use the complete term.
We would prefer not to implement this comment if possible. We agree that acronyms should not be used in titles, usually, but this is context-dependent. For the Resources-Events-Agents accounting model, paper titles usually say “REA accounting model”. In fact, the seminal paper on the matter is titled: “The REA Accounting Model: A Generalized Framework for Accounting Systems in a Shared Data Environment”.
abstract\ The abstract needs some improvements. Please include the objective, gap, problem of the statement, results, and main conclusion in the abstract.
Implemented
please follow the journal template.
Implemented
please follow the referencing style.
Implemented
Reviewer 4 Report
This article is largely an introduction to shared ledger systems, rather than a strictly academic paper. The article only provides a general analysis and does not provide clear results and conclusions.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. We have reclassified the paper as a review.
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript entitled “REA, Triple-Entry Accounting and Blockchain: Converging Paths to Shared Ledger Systems” presents an interesting study. It explore the historical ties between REA and TEA, and clarify and reveal the relationships between concepts sharing the name of TEA. The results are clearly presented.
However, this study is not rigorous enough and the structure of this paper needs to be adjusted:
1. - The introduction section is generally not divided into sub sections, and the title of 1.1 can be electrified.
2. - 1.2 should not appear in the introduction section. If 1.2 is the methodology of the article, it is recommended to include it as part 3 of the paper. But the content discussed in this section is not the method.
3. - The paper lacks section 3.
4. - According to the general guidelines for writing, section 4 should be the results.
5. - Section s 6 and 7 should be swapped in order.
The English expression is generally good, with only a few unclear content expressions.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your kind comments. We have sought to implement them to the best of our abilities.
- - The introduction section is generally not divided into sub sections, and the title of 1.1 can be electrified.
We have implemented this comment.
2. - 1.2 should not appear in the introduction section. If 1.2 is the methodology of the article, it is recommended to include it as part 3 of the paper. But the content discussed in this section is not the method.
We have implemented this comment with methodology as a stand-alone section, although we made the choice of presenting it before the clarification of concepts, as the latter is an output of the methodology.
3. - The paper lacks section 3.
Apologies for this error, we have corrected this.
4. - According to the general guidelines for writing, section 4 should be the results.
Thank you for this comment. This is true for the general guidelines. We followed the guidelines for the "Review" article type, which do not require this section, however.
5. - Section s 6 and 7 should be swapped in order.
We have implemented this comment.
Round 3
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors needs to further consider the following three questions: (1) Whether the content of section 2 mainly involves methods. (2) Is it better to switch the order between section 2 and section 3. (3) Is the fourth section the research results?
The English expression is generally good, with only a few unclear content expressions.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments, we have switched the order of section 2 and 3, as well expanded the new section 3 to make the methodology clearer. The fourth section has been tagged as results for clarity
