Critical Success Factors Evaluation for Blockchain’s Adoption and Implementing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Motivated by the challenges of adopting and implementing blockchain technologies, the authors proposed a framework that investigated critical factors influencing the successful adoption of blockchain and utilized a technique to prioritize them. Fourteen critical success factors are identified from the literature, placed in three categories, and ranked based on prominence and relationship. 16 KPIs for successfully adopting blockchain are identified and placed in five categories. The authors claimed that the result showed that factors categorized within the environmental factors are the most critical for successful blockchain adoption. The top significant factors are law and policies, competitive pressure, and scalability.

The authors proposed and presented good research investigations, methods, and interesting results. Here are my comments:

-        The introduction is weak and needs more work and improvement to focus on the research problems and motivations. The reader needs the motivation to read more about CSFs presented here. A storytelling part needs to be here, at least in the introduction. I found that what I have read in the abstract is repeated here.

-        The authors applied DEMATEL after identifying a research gap to find the relationships between CSFs. This is a good and exciting contribution.

-        The research question and objective were part of the related work section. This is not related. Use separate sections or restructure or use another name for this section.

-        Please elaborate more in the research model section by naming, linking, and numbering the steps in Figure 1.     

-        A better presentation of the steps should be reflected in the following subsections.

-        [23][24] both conducted a Systematic literature review for their studies. You did conduct a systematic literature review based on your claims. This is another contribution to highlight. 

-        Why did you use the search only between 2018-2022? Justification is needed.

-        "tollgate approach" Please, provide a short description.

-        What are the inclusion and exclusion criteria considered here?

-        I suggest referring to 2007, 2009 & 2009 Kitchenham et al. in conducting SLR.

-        As only 3 of ten Blockchain experts responded to the Hierarchal DEMATEL questionnaire, how do you think the result is valid and significant? Ten is not enough for such input. I think the authors need to consider this critical issue. Justification and details are needed.  

-        Proofreading and copyediting are required.

Some suggestions:

-        Line 37: Spill out the abbreviation as its first-time use (BCAKPIS)

-        Line 58: Spill out PESTEL.

-        Line 66: the connection between sentences needs to be fixed.

-        Line 111: "elaborated through the following sub-sections." Name them, please.

-        Figure 1 Use a proper name and avoid "our"  

-        Figure 3 is not clear.

-        Line 322: Spill out IDR

I think the authors should claim several contributions, including conducting SLR to identify CSFS and BCAKPIS and constructing, measuring, and ranking the influence and relationship among the identified factors. The paper provides good and publishable contributions. However, the authors need to work on the comments and provide explanations in more detail. Moreover, the authors need to proofread and Copywrite the manuscript as it is highly similar to cited papers. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1: The introduction is weak and needs more work and improvement to focus on the research

problems and motivations. The reader needs the motivation to read more about CSFs presented

here. A storytelling part needs to be here, at least in the introduction. I found that what I have

read in the abstract is repeated here.

Response 1: thanks reviewer for your positive feedback. I have updated and added the important critical success factor.  

Point 2: The authors applied DEMATEL after identifying a research gap to find the relationships between CSFs. This is a good and exciting contribution.

Response 2: thanks reviewer for your feedback.

Point 3: The research question and objective were part of the related work section. This is not related. Use separate sections or restructure or use another name for this section.

Response 1: thanks reviewer for your positive feedback,I have moved the research question and objective in the introduction.

Point 4: Please elaborate more in the research model section by naming, linking, and numbering the steps in Figure 1.

Response 1: thanks reviewer for your positive feedback, I have updated Figure 1 .

Point 5: A better presentation of the steps should be reflected in the following subsections.

Response 1: thanks reviewer for your positive feedback, I have updated this in section 3.

Point 6: [23][24] both conducted a Systematic literature review for their studies. You did conduct a

systematic literature review based on your claims. This is another contribution to highlight.

Response 1: thanks reviewer for your positive feedback, I add this contribution in the introduction and conclusion

Point 7: Why did you use the search only between 2018-2022? Justification is needed.

Response 1: thanks reviewer for your positive feedback, this is updated in section 3.

Point 8:  "tollgate approach" Please, provide a short description.

Response 1: thanks reviewer for your positive feedback, this is updated in section 3.

Point 9: What are the inclusion and exclusion criteria considered here?

Response 1: thanks reviewer for your positive feedback, this is updated in section 3.

Point 10: I suggest referring to 2007, 2009 & 2009 Kitchenham et al. in conducting SLR.

Response 1: thanks reviewer for your positive feedback, I have added citation in section 3.

Point 11: As only 3 of ten Blockchain experts responded to the Hierarchal DEMATEL questionnaire, how do you think the result is valid and significant? Ten is not enough for such input. I think the authors need to consider this critical issue. Justification and details are needed.

Response 1: thanks reviewer for your positive feedback, this is updated in sub section 4.2.

Point 12: Proofreading and copyediting are required.

Response 12: thanks reviewer this is done.

 

Some suggestions:

- Line 37: Spill out the abbreviation as its first-time use (BCAKPIS)

Response: this is done

- Line 58: Spill out PESTEL.

Response: this is done

- Line 66: the connection between sentences needs to be fixed.

Response: this is done

- Line 111: "elaborated through the following sub-sections." Name them, please.

Response: this is done

- Figure 1 Use a proper name and avoid "our"

Response: this is done

- Figure 3 is not clear.

Response: this is done. Figure is spilt in two figure 3 and 4

- Line 322: Spill out IDR

Response: this is done

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The motivation of the article must be included in the introduction’s sections. The introduction’s sections are relatively very short. 
2.Include the GitHub repository for your framework's reproducibility of the result. 
3.Improve the quality of Figure 3. It is not readable. Figure 4 must be replaced as equations. 
4.In conclusion, you mentioned that you "test our framework in some applications." What applications? 
5. Related Work Section: Use a table to summarize the existing framework's merits and demerits with your model.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1: The motivation of the article must be included in the introduction’s sections. the introduction’s sections are relatively very short.

Response 1: thanks reviewer for your positive feedback. I have updated the introduction.

Point 2.Include the GitHub repository for your framework's reproducibility of the result.

Response 1: thanks reviewer,this is done

Point 3.Improve the quality of Figure 3. It is not readable. Figure 4 must be replaced as equations.

Response: this is done. Figure is spilt in two figure 3 and 4.

Figure 4 is replaced as equation.

Point 4.In conclusion, you mentioned that you "test our framework in some applications." What

applications?

Response 1: thanks reviewer for your positive feedback. This id done in section conclusion

Point 5. Related Work Section: Use a table to summarize the existing framework's merits and demerits with your model.

Response 1: thanks reviewer for your positive feedback. This is done in table 1.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf