Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article improved, but not enough to deserve publication in a high-impact journal. The version issued by the authors is very hard to follow. I suggest two issues, to give and stress an exploratory typology to the article (your article definitively is not a scientific piece, but can be an instrument to derive hypothesis for further studies) and to issue a new version without any changes. What you changed you already stated in your message. Now I’ m looking for what resulted from your changes. please also consider that your method is a multiple case study. Case studies are strategies to derive clues for further studies. Therefore, your findings are not conclusion, but hypothesis to be tested in further, deeper research, fi, in a survey in the industry.

Otherwise, I dont think your article should be published in a high-impact journal.

Looking forward to your next version.

Author Response

Thannk you again for your time and effort to review our study. Your suggestions were highly apprecriatied. In the following, we comment on the various suggestions.

1 ) The article improved, but not enough to deserve publication in a high-impact journal.

A: We made several amendments to it. With the incorporation of your following suggestions, we hope to have changed your opinion. If not, we are happy to do further revisions.

2) The version issued by the authors is very hard to follow.

A: We have changed the overall structure of the article for an eaier reading flow as well renumbered the sections.

3) I suggest two issues, to give and stress an exploratory typology to the article (your article definitively is not a scientific piece, but can be an instrument to derive hypothesis for further studies) and to issue a new version without any changes. What you changed you already stated in your message. Now I’ m looking for what resulted from your changes. please also consider that your method is a multiple case study. Case studies are strategies to derive clues for further studies. Therefore, your findings are not conclusion, but hypothesis to be tested in further, deeper research, fi, in a survey in the industry.

A: Thank you for that helpful remark. We reformulated our study as an multiple case study, e.g. “By exploring various bounded systems over a certain period of time, a multiple case study analysis serves to understand the value of findings, enables a more broaden theoretical evolution as well as research questions can be derived [32]. Due to its novelty, the underlying study has partly been built upon a multiple case study analysis and allows for a more interesting research [33].” (p. 8).

Otherwise, I dont think your article should be published in a high-impact journal.

Looking forward to your next version.

Reviewer 2 Report

Most of the comments have been addressed.

At the end of the introduction there should be a short outline of the rest of the paper. The sections should be renumbered. 

The authors should add a comparison about other types of distributed ledger technologies, especially for IoT such as IOTA:
- "Introduction to IoT Security." IoT Security: Advances in Authentication (2020): 27-64.
- "Comparative analysis of distributed ledger technologies." In 2018 Global Wireless Summit (GWS), pp. 370-373. IEEE, 2018.
- "A study on improvement of blockchain application to overcome vulnerability of IoT multiplatform security." Energies 12, no. 3 (2019): 402.

More concrete future work should be envisioned in the conclusions.

Author Response

Thannk you again for your time and effort to review our study. Your suggestions were highly apprecriatied. In the following, we comment on the various suggestions.

Most of the comments have been addressed.

1) At the end of the introduction there should be a short outline of the rest of the paper. The sections should be renumbered. 

Thank you for your suggestion. We have changed the numbering of the sections.

2) The authors should add a comparison about other types of distributed ledger technologies, especially for IoT such as IOTA:
- "Introduction to IoT Security." IoT Security: Advances in Authentication (2020): 27-64.
- "Comparative analysis of distributed ledger technologies." In 2018 Global Wireless Summit (GWS), pp. 370-373. IEEE, 2018.
- "A study on improvement of blockchain application to overcome vulnerability of IoT multiplatform security." Energies 12, no. 3 (2019): 402.

A: Also, thank you for this valuable remark. We have included a table to give an overview of different blockchain-based IoT protocols (p. 5)

3) More concrete future work should be envisioned in the conclusions.

A: Totally right, thank you. We have createt a separate sub-section for further research (section 5.2). In it, we, for example, write: “Among others, opportunities for further research comprise the governance of blockchains, technological improvements, regulation and law as well as the blockchain’s integration with the off-chain world. Referring to integrated business ecosystems, a central prerequisite for the success is the selection of an appropriate governance models. To the author's knowledge, no substantial research has been carried out on this subject to date. However, due to the blockchain’s ability to incorporate numerous possibilities of configuring its governance, it will be of utmost importance to investigate suitable governance models to facilitate inter-company cooperation. The currently low scalability of blockchains remains an impediment to adoption in the industrial sector. However, high scalability is an absolute imperative in industrial settings, as a high and cost-efficient data throughput must be ensured. Especially in interaction with IoT, it will become even more important in the future to be able to process larger amounts of data in a shorter period of time. In this area, research will need to develop solutions to increase scalability in order to position the blockchain technology as a viable alternative to centralized systems.”

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript would be interesting for the readers of the Journal of Future Internet. Generally, manuscript has a potential to be published after adopting following suggestions:

1. Abstract should contains subject and goal of the research.
2. Introduction section should have defined goal of the research.
3. Section 2 should contain literature review in aim to show similar studies. 
4. The structure of the section 3 is not well organized. There should be research context, participants, instruments. Research questions subtitle is 3.3 just like "Selection of interview partners and sampling". Change the numeration. 
5. Section 4 should be named to Analysis of the results. This section should have some descriptive statistics data and conclusions which hypotheses are confirmed.  
6. Conclusion section should contains scientific contribution of the manuscript and comparison with other similar research presented in the section 2.

Author Response

The manuscript would be interesting for the readers of the Journal of Future Internet. Generally, manuscript has a potential to be published after adopting following suggestions:

• Abstract should contains subject and goal of the research.
  1. Thank you for your valuable input. We have added the following sentences to clarify subject and goal of the research:
     1. “This qualitative study explores the influence of blockchain technology on the CFO-function of an industrial company.”
     2. “Thus, the objective of this work is to provide corporate financial functions, such as the CFO of an industrial company, with an understanding of the extent to which blockchain technology can be used for the role-specific responsibilities.”

• “Therefore, the underlying qualitative study explores the influence of blockchain technology on the CFO-function of an industrial company.”

• Introduction section should have defined goal of the research.
  1. Also, thank you very much. You are right. We have added the following paragraphs, e.g.:
     1. “Therefore, the presented study aims to determine the impact of blockchain technology on the CFO of an industrial company in respect to his financial and strategic role, on his role-specific performance indicators, as well as in regard to integrated business ecosystems.”
     2. […]”However, in the scientific field of blockchain technology, there is still a considerable divergence between the scientific implications and the practical implementation. Although industry leaders generally consider blockchain technology to be potentially disruptive, they often miss the comprehension of where and how blockchain technology can be used effectively and where it has considerable practical benefits [5]. Consequently, it is indispensable for science to consider not only the technological aspects of blockchain technology but also the field of practical application. In this context, research should primarily focus on corporate functions, such as the CFO, that can advance and facilitate a meaningful application of the blockchain technology.[…]”

• Section 2 should contain literature review in aim to show similar scientific studies. 
  5. You are definitely right. However, we are not aware of any similar research in this area on blockchain technology and its influence on corporate functions. We hope that due to the highly exploratory nature of our research, we will be given a little more flexibility in this respect. However, we have added this point to the section 5.3 (implications for further research): “To the author's knowledge, no substantial research has been carried out on this subject to date.”
• The structure of the section 3 is not well organized. There should be research context, participants, instruments. Research questions subtitle is 3.3 just like "Selection of interview partners and sampling". Change the numeration.
  3. Thank you for this helpful comment. We have reorganized the sections and arranged them in accordance with your requirements. Please refer to sections 3.1 ff. We have added a tabular overview of the interviewed experts for an easier overview.
• Section 4 should be named to Analysis of the results. This section should have some descriptive statistics data and conclusions which hypotheses are confirmed.
  5. Due to the high level of exploration, we are not able to come to any definitive conclusions. In the description of the individual research questions we refer to the general influence of blockchain technology on the CFO-function. However, we have tried to incorporate your demand in section 5.1 (scientific implications); e.g.:
     1. “First, it reaffirms the gradual reallocation of the CFO role from its traditional finance function towards an increasingly strategically operating corporate body.”
     2. “It concludes that the blockchain technology considerably improves a number of performance indicators relevant to the CFO. In this context, this paper also addresses the so far overlooked prerequisites, which must be fulfilled in order to realize the detected potential performance increases.”

• “Furthermore, this work complements the existing literature on blockchain-enabled integrated business ecosystems and the resulting impact on the CFO and his organization potentially leading to an economic paradigm shift.”

• Conclusion section should contains scientific contribution of the manuscript and comparison with other similar research presented in the section 2.
  5. Thank you very much for that input. We have added a new paragraf (section 5.1); e.g.:
     1. “This explorative paper shows that blockchain technology will have a significant impact on the CFO-function of an industrial company. Specifically, this work not only supports but also extends existing research of e.g. Caglio et al. [43] and Datta & Iskandar-Datta [44] on the impact of emerging technologies on the financial corporate function by explicitly addressing blockchain technology.”

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article remains very little attraction for a cutting-edge researcher audience, as it still brings very little novelty about a theme of scarce interest, the role fo CEO in handling blockchain technology. Perhaps new research focusing not on the role of an individual, but the implications of blockchain in the financial strategy of the company.

Author Response

• The article improved, but not enough to deserve publication in a high-impact journal. The version issued by the authors is very hard to follow. I suggest two issues, to give and stress an exploratory typology to the article (your article definitively is not a scientific piece, but can be an instrument to derive hypothesis for further studies) and to issue a new version without any changes. What you changed you already stated in your message. Now I’ m looking for what resulted from your changes. please also consider that your method is a multiple case study. Case studies are strategies to derive clues for further studies. Therefore, your findings are not conclusion, but hypothesis to be tested in further, deeper research, fi, in a survey in the industry.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

 

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, the work is well done. Please, open a section including a literature section. Try to expand more the abstract and give more impact on the conclusion and results obtained. Please include this article in the reference and text!

 Binci D., Belisari S. and Appolloni  A. (2019) BPM and change management: An ambidextrous perspective. Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-06-2018-0158

 

thank 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author, 

you should stress the novelty of your work in the introduction.

the abstract should be rewritten underlining the novelty of your work (about 200-300 words)

the conclusions are very long. You should stress the novelty of the work and the main finds.

it is not a scientific article, then the scientific soundness is few. However, the novelty is good as well the overall merit. The english is fine.

Reviewer 3 Report

Abstracts is very poor. Essential scientific elements are missing, such as the research gap, the purpose of the article, the research method (case study, survey, action-research, a design research ... ?), findings, and implications of the study. Also, the keywords are less sensitive. As they are generic, they tell very little about the study.

Please refrain from relying too much on non-high impact, peer-reviewed references, such as Deutsche Bundesbank, Bundesministerium, ..., Use only high impact updated reference (> 2015). Some issues must be aggregate in the same paragraph. Refrain from stating little paragraphs, as they turn the reading tedious and time-consuming. In the Introduction, you must state at least the usual elements in scientific production: justification, research gap (derived from the literature), research question, purpose, objectives, research methodology, expected contribution, and position of the article in front of the extant literature (what the literature already did, what it still not do, and what you will do);

Sections 2 and 3 are useless. As you don't state your purpose, these sections seem to be outplaced;

The review is very poor and relies on little updated literature. Please perform a more rigorous survey on the issue, based on classical databases. Improve section 4 to transform it into a review that would be useful to the reader to understand your point;

Figure 1 is outplayed and has no source. Who depicted it? The same is true for Fig. 2

It lacks section 5;

Please differentiate between the research method (you led a survey, a case study, action research? please define) and research methodology (interviews). Please be more careful regarding methodological concerns. How do you assure the validity (did you measure what you really want?) and reliability (can anyone else find the same results?) of your findings? Also please assess the external validity (can my findings be valid in other industries or types of business?) How can you assure that the sample is representative, regarding the number and the stratification? You led a survey, so you should present demographic data from the industry and compare it with demographic data of the sample. From where did the questions stem or how did you derive the questions? Each question must rely on a suitable set of empirical pieces of evidence published in updated, high-impact studies. As you gathered an intermediate, not a little number of respondents, you should present your results in a more advanced form, f.i., a regression model, an expert panel, a correlation analysis, etc. As is, you extracted very little from your findings.

Te conclusions poor and relies only partially on the findings. Please add the implications of your study (who gains what) and clues for further research.

Best regards

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

This paper seeks to investigate the impact that blockchain technology and its convergence have on the chief financial officer (CFO) in the future. The impact of this technology will be determined through a qualitative approach and interviews with experts.
As a conclusion after the interviews with the experts, blockchain technology will have a significant impact on the role of the CFO.
This paper wants to analyze the impact of blockchain technology in the business field from a CFO perspective.
Even though blockchain tr brings new concerns as cybersecurity, data security, the cryptocurrency volatility for the moment, Blockchain security will conduce to the M2M economy’s success in the future. It will integrate new methods of doing business as blockchain transactions of smart contracts, payments, new business models, new inter- and intra-company processes, better integration of data flow. The machine to machine economy will intensify business digitalization so the impact of blockchain technology is undeniable.
There are some minor spelling and grammar errors, for example:
- of highest priority - of the highest priority
- well utilized - well-utilized
- and the practical implementation - and practical implementation
The authors should add a comparison about other types of distributed ledger technologies, especially for IoT such as IOTA:
- "Introduction to IoT Security." IoT Security: Advances in Authentication (2020): 27-64.
- "Comparative analysis of distributed ledger technologies." In 2018 Global Wireless Summit (GWS), pp. 370-373. IEEE, 2018.
- "A study on improvement of blockchain application to overcome vulnerability of IoT multiplatform security." Energies 12, no. 3 (2019): 402.

Future work should be envisioned in the conclusions.