DAO Research Trends: Reflections and Learnings from the First European DAO Workshop (DAWO)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Now all the necessary changes are done and it is a good contribution.

Author Response

Comment 1: Now all the necessary changes are done and it is a good contribution.

Answer 1: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s positive feedback and acknowledgment of our revisions. We are glad that the changes have strengthened the contribution of our paper.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article summarizes recent research on Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs). This is an important emerging concept that combines decentralized governance with blockchain-based smart contracts. The review focuses on studies presented in July 2024 at the first European DAO Workshop.

Given that the DAOs are a relatively new concept, summarizing current research themes is a worthwhile task. A limitation of this review is that it focuses solely on 14 abstracts and 11 full articles presented at one specific workshop. The review identifies four common research themes based on this sample and outlines future research directions. The article is well-written in general, but the small scope of the review limits its potential novelty and impact.

Several improvements can be recommended. First, it is not clear how the four major themes presented in the review were selected. The article goes straight into four different topical sections after the introduction. It would help if the process of grouping the articles and identifying the themes is described in more detail before the specific studies are presented.

Second, the review seems quite repetitive as the various articles and themes are described in the topical sections 2-5, then again in very similar terms in the discussion section 6, and in the conclusion section 7. Repetitions should be kept to a minimum.

Third, the limitations of this review should be addressed, probably in the conclusion section. In particular, the limited scope of the review should be acknowledged, and any major themes of current DAO research outside of this review’s scope should be mentioned.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper analyzes the areas of future research in the domain of DAO – Decentralized Autonomous Organizations. The analysis is based on a set of papers presented during a workshop devoted to the topic.

The authors got one thing right – the definition of DAO is fluid, tricky and the paper does not make it any more clear. The definition like “an entity that lives on the internet and exists autonomously, but also relies heavily on individuals to take on certain tasks that the autonomous entity cannot do itself” leaves enormous room for interpretation.

The paper provides some examples of such organizations, but does not discuss, how the structure of those organizations is distinct from conventional.

The paper explores the directions of research of DAO – governance, legal framework, innovation management.

The paper needs to become much more specific:

1.      Start with giving an example of DAO, one organization, which meets most of the criteria of the definition. Explain, how this DAO works, how it achieves the goal of “decentralized governance” and how it integrates smart contracts. Explain what its ownership structure is and how the decisions are taken. Explain what its legal status is: is it an LTD or smth else? How are economic benefits distributed among financing parties.

This concrete example will give the reader a good idea about the details of functioning of a DAO and may frame further discussion.

Without it, is looks like a quasi-religious discussion of an alternative form of making business, which this is clearly not.

 

2.      The rest is fine, but to understand the essence of the discussion, a reader needs to clearly understand what a DAO is.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a systematic review of the research at the DAWO24 workshop and follows a structured methodology (PRISMA). There are significant weaknesses that need to be addressed: 

1- The paper mainly summarises the research presented at DAWO24 without offering a deep, critical field analysis. It lacks an original theoretical or conceptual contribution. Though the synthesis is useful, it does not introduce new insights beyond what was discussed at the workshop.

2- The paper does not articulate a clear research question or objective beyond summarizing the DAWO24 discussions. 3- The PRISMA methodology is not well-justified for this type of study. The authors should add more details on the steps of PRISMA methodology and thematic analysis. 4- It is not clear why did authors selected only DAWO24 papers instead of a broader literature review.

5- The section on legal frameworks is underdeveloped. The challenges of DAO legal recognition and liability issues deserve more critical discussion. 

6- The paper does not explore the practical implications of DAO research for policymakers, industry leaders, or developers. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript provides a comprehensive summary of the outcomes from DAWO24 Workshop, offering analytical insights into DAO governance mechanisms, technical frameworks, value assessment, and legal dimensions, while also presenting thoughtful perspectives on future directions.
From both writing and technical standpoints, there is limited room for further improvement.
While this paper does not conform to the traditional structure of a review article, particularly not a technical review, it serves effectively as a workshop report. As a workshop report, the manuscript is well-organized and meets the acceptance criteria.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- I appreciate the authors’ efforts in revising the paper. However, it still doesn’t meet the requirements of a publication in a reputed journal like Applied Sciences. This paper is a useful synthesis of DAO research but lacks methodological rigour, broader literature integration, and empirical depth.

• The selection and application of PRISMA method raises concerns, for example:

  1- The authors do not specify clear inclusion or exclusion criteria for selecting the 14 abstracts and 11 full papers.

  2- It remains unclear whether all DAWO24 papers were considered or if some were excluded based on relevance or quality.

  3- PRISMA reviews typically follow a systematic data extraction framework, but this paper does not outline such a process.

  4- While the findings are grouped into thematic clusters, the methodology for categorization is not well-defined.It is still not how many Keywords were selected and how these were into groups. No justification is provided for the themes? 

  5- PRISMA requires a flow diagram to illustrate how studies were selected, screened, and included. The lack of this diagram makes the selection process less transparent.

  6- A critical appraisal of selected studies is missing. PRISMA reviews typically assess the reliability of sources, but this paper does not discuss potential biases or limitations in the DAWO24 papers. The paper claims to use PRISMA, however its approach is closer to a narrative literature review than a fully structured systematic review. 

- The use of ChatGPT also raises ethical concerns. The authors mentioned that “Specifically, it seeks to address 108 the following research question: What are the key unresolved challenges and emerging research 109 directions in the field of DAOs, as identified through interdisciplinary discussions at DAWO24?.” It is also not clear whether an informed consent was obtained from the participants of DAO workshop (for using discussions). Several quotes from DAO workshop may add value to the paper. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some sentences are too long and contain grammatical mistakes. For example: The objective of this paper is to systematically analyze and synthesizes the critical 105 topics and research questions in recent studies on DAOs presented and discussed at the 106 DAWO24 with the aim to provide a structured overview of the critical challenges DAOs 107 face and to identify promising avenues for future research.

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

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study explores unresolved challenges associated with Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs), focusing on governance mechanisms and legal ambiguities. It examines decentralized governance and blockchain-based smart contracts while highlighting the vulnerabilities and complexities of integrating DAO practices into open-source software development. Still, the authors provide a high-level description, lacking relevant evidence to sustain the proposed approach.

To enhance the paper's scientific contribution, the authors should consider incorporating a scoping review to provide a broader context for the implications of DAOs. Specifically, to justify/demonstrate that by eliminating centralized control and enabling collective decision-making, DAOs present a more democratic, transparent, and efficient alternative to traditional hierarchical structures - authors should provide examples with concrete data to fundament this statement. Concrete examples would strengthen the study's relevance and practical application.

The paper lacks a clearly defined research methodology. The authors should adopt a formal method, such as a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) or a Scoping Review, to provide a structured and replicable approach. In scientific research, authors must describe the methodology explicitly so other researchers can validate or challenge the findings. The paper's structure should also be revised to present more evidence and measurable data, clarifying the authors' approach and demonstrating the tangible benefits and impacts of the study.

In the revised version, the authors should offer deeper insights into the main challenges faced by DAO, as discussed in the paper. This would help contextualize the findings and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the issues outlined in the paper.

The article draws heavily on insights from recent studies and discussions presented at DAWO24 in July 2024. However, it is unclear if the paper represents original, unpublished research. The frequent emphasis on DAWO24 raises concerns about whether the content aligns with the expectations of a new research or review paper. This aspect should be addressed to ensure compliance with academic standards.

Finally, the conclusion section requires significant improvement. It fails to effectively summarize the findings or highlight the key gaps identified in the related work. The authors should provide a concise overview of the study's outcomes, offering a clear perspective on the challenges, contributions, and future directions. A major revision is needed to make the conclusion more impactful and aligned with the paper's objectives.

 

At least three self-citations were identified: [13], [16] and [33].

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The objective of this article is not clear. The title suggest something about a workshop - this is not a viable objective for a scientific article. However, the manuscript itself is a literature review, and has very little apparent connection to the mentioned workshop. The methodology of the literature review is not specified. Overall, it is not clear what is the purpose of the article, what it tries to demonstrate. Mentioning a workshop does not clarify anything, it just leads to more confusion and suggests that the work is not something relevant or important. I suggest the authors to clarify their intentions and to use a validated methodology for a scientific article.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is about synthesizing the insights from recent studies and discussions presented in July 2024 at DAOW24. The DAO24 workshop has emphasized the necessity for robust governance frameworks that balance power, ensure transparency, and effectively resolve conflicts, thereby maintaining inclusivity and fairness within DAOs.

The study has identified (i) Analyzing Governance Mechanisms, (ii) Developing Tools and Frameworks, (iii) Assessing the Value and (iv) Exploring Legal and Regulatory Dimensions as the four main trends in DAO research. As shown in Figure 1, each trend has a distinct research focus and comes  with specific future research directions.

Also one of the important thing is the workshop explored the legal and regulatory dimensions of DAOs. This article has well said that further research  and innovation in DAO-related areas are needed, particularly emphasizing the importance of inter-disciplinary research.

As a whole its good summary and study paper.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for sharing your research. My comments and suggestions are as follows: 

1- The abstract needs to be rewritten. It should focus on the purpose, methods, and results of the study. From line 15 onwards, this should be part of the introduction. 
2. The introduction section is very weak. It should be further expanded and supported by overall DAO context in the EU. It is just a summary of contributions from DAOW24. 
3- Line 79: This section is a duplication of the abstract, and there is no new information in here. You have changed the abstract and kept this section. 
4. After thoroughly reviewing this paper, I couldn’t find any contributions to the academic field. Authors used ChatGPT in summarising the contributions that raise severe ethical and originality concerns. Authors should clearly highlight their contribution in this article.

5. The summary appears to present a rather basic understanding of research trends, as illustrated in Figure 1. These elements represent well-established ideas within the discipline and do not advance the current body of knowledge. Overall, the work fails to introduce innovative insights or methodologies that would significantly enhance scholarly discourse in this area.

6. The conclusion presented in this article primarily draws upon DAOW24, rather than offering original empirical and/or theoretical analysis. While the paper provides a comprehensive review of previously published studies, it lacks a unique dataset or firsthand investigation that would lend new insights into the topic. Instead of conducting their experiments or surveys, the authors synthesise the conclusions of other researchers, which limits the depth of their findings.