Machine Learning and Blockchain: A Bibliometric Study on Security and Privacy
, Juan David González-Ruiz 2, Lilian Verde Flores 1, Luis Vega-Mori 3, Paula RodrÃguez-Correa 4 and Gustavo Sánchez Santos 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study offers the following contributions:
1. The study employs a bibliometric analysis methodology grounded in PRISMA-2020 parameters to explore research trends in machine learning and blockchain technology. Notably, the analysis identifies emerging trends in blockchain, including cloud computing, intrusion detection, and distributed learning. Furthermore, the literature analysis conducted in Scopus and Web of Science databases underscores that the United States, Australia, and India are at the forefront of research in this field.
2. The bibliometric analysis presented in this study offers a comprehensive and systematic overview of scientific production. Furthermore, the study highlights the necessity for periodic updates to ensure a contemporaneous understanding of the evolving research landscape in this domain.
Nevertheless, a few suggested improvements merit consideration for this study:
1. In Figure 1 on page 7, within the final stage of PRISMA, it should be noted that the number of papers included in this study is 166 (rather than 165). This discrepancy arises from the fact that the number of reports assessed for eligibility is 266, while the number of reports excluded amounts to 100 (91+9).
2. Following the implementation of specialized search queries for Scopus and Web of Science, the study employed an automated tool in Microsoft Excel as an internal automated classifier, rather than relying on human professional reviewers for literature selection and validation. Although the study undertook a data confirmation process involving collaborative author efforts, it is advisable that the authors provide a comprehensive exposition of the confirmation process to ensure the suitability of the selected published articles for meeting the research objectives.
No comments.
Author Response
September 18th, 2023
Dear
Information – Editorial Team
Kind regards
In accordance with the suggestions of the reviewers in our article “Machine Learning and Blockchain: A Bibliometric Study on Security and Privacy”, the following changes were made, properly marked with blue letters in the article:
|
Reviewer |
Comment |
Answer |
|
Reviewer 1 |
1. In Figure 1 on page 7, within the final stage of PRISMA, it should be noted that the number of papers included in this study is 166 (rather than 165). This discrepancy arises from the fact that the number of reports assessed for eligibility is 266, while the number of reports excluded amounts to 100 (91+9). |
The final number of articles included in the study is corrected |
|
Reviewer 1 |
2. Following the implementation of specialized search queries for Scopus and Web of Science, the study employed an automated tool in Microsoft Excel as an internal automated classifier, rather than relying on human professional reviewers for literature selection and validation. Although the study undertook a data confirmation process involving collaborative author efforts, it is advisable that the authors provide a comprehensive exposition of the confirmation process to ensure the suitability of the selected published articles for meeting the research objectives. |
Information is included in the methodology section to account for the confirmation process to ensure the appropriateness of document eligibility |
We look forward to your comments and hope to hear from you soon.
Thank you very much
_
The authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper contains a decent literature review, however, there are several issues that need to be fixed:
1. The abstract is too short and needs to be restructured following the journal's guidelines.
2. The introduction section needs to be expanded, covering more broad research in the field of blockchain advancements in various fields. Currently, a broader view is only provided for machine learning and not for blockchain. Suggested papers to be referenced are:
Kechagias, E. P., Gayialis, S. P., Papadopoulos, G. A., & Papoutsis, G. (2023). An Ethereum-Based Distributed Application for Enhancing Food Supply Chain Traceability. Foods, 12(6), 1220.
Wan, Y., Gao, Y., & Hu, Y. (2022). Blockchain application and collaborative innovation in the manufacturing industry: Based on the perspective of social trust. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 177, 121540.
Gong, Y., Wang, Y., Frei, R., Wang, B., & Zhao, C. (2022). Blockchain application in circular marine plastic debris management. Industrial Marketing Management, 102, 164-176.
Lemos, C., Ramos, R. F., Moro, S., & Oliveira, P. M. (2022). Stick or twist—the rise of blockchain applications in marketing management. Sustainability, 14(7), 4172.
Gayialis, S. P., Kechagias, E. P., Papadopoulos, G. A., & Kanakis, E. (2022, September). A smart-contract enabled blockchain traceability system against wine supply chain counterfeiting. In IFIP International Conference on Advances in Production Management Systems (pp. 477-484). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
Mahmudnia, D., Arashpour, M., & Yang, R. (2022). Blockchain in construction management: Applications, advantages and limitations. Automation in Construction, 140, 104379.
3. The analysis is of good quality, however, the significance of the study isn't clear. The authors don't explain the contribution of their research to the scientific community, nor do they discuss the limitations of their research. The authors also need to discuss similar research on this topic and explain how their research and results relate to them.
4. The main issue is the methodology followed to conduct the literature review. The search is limited only to the titles of papers and not their abstracts. In most cases, the titles alone can't reflect adequately the paper's content and, therefore, papers should be searched based on titles, abstracts, and keywords. Also, a great number of papers were excluded from the study (91 conference papers). The studied topic is highly technical and popular in conferences so these papers shouldn't be excluded. Also, the authors falsely state that they have excluded conference proceedings (they have in fact excluded conference papers, not just proceedings). If a research excludes conference papers there needs to be a clear and significant reason for this. These major issues lead to a quite small amount of studied papers and to the overall questionable robustness and significance of the literature review.
5. The discussion section is not a discussion section. It is the main analysis of the findings of the research. The authors need to add a separate discussion section that is structured as stated in the journal's guidelines.
In many cases, the authors write overly large sentences that are difficult to follow and contain multiple syntax and grammar errors that must be fixed.
Author Response
September 18th, 2023
Dear
Information – Editorial Team
Kind regards
In accordance with the suggestions of the reviewers in our article “Machine Learning and Blockchain: A Bibliometric Study on Security and Privacy”, the following changes were made, properly marked with blue letters in the article:
|
Reviewer |
Comment |
Answer |
|
Reviewer 2 |
1. The abstract is too short and needs to be restructured following the journal's guidelines. |
The abstract is expanded |
|
Reviewer 2 |
2. The introduction section needs to be expanded, covering more broad research in the field of blockchain advancements in various fields. Currently, a broader view is only provided for machine learning and not for blockchain. Suggested papers to be referenced are: |
The introduction section is expanded with information on the applicability of Blockchain technology in various areas and industries including suggested references |
|
Reviewer 2 |
3. The analysis is of good quality, however, the significance of the study isn't clear. The authors don't explain the contribution of their research to the scientific community, nor do they discuss the limitations of their research. The authors also need to discuss similar research on this topic and explain how their research and results relate to them. |
The theoretical implications of the study, as well as its importance and contribution to the scientific community, are included in the discussion section. |
|
Reviewer 2 |
4. The main issue is the methodology followed to conduct the literature review. The search is limited only to the titles of papers and not their abstracts. In most cases, the titles alone can't reflect adequately the paper's content and, therefore, papers should be searched based on titles, abstracts, and keywords. Also, a great number of papers were excluded from the study (91 conference papers). The studied topic is highly technical and popular in conferences so these papers shouldn't be excluded. Also, the authors falsely state that they have excluded conference proceedings (they have in fact excluded conference papers, not just proceedings). If a research excludes conference papers there needs to be a clear and significant reason for this. These major issues lead to a quite small amount of studied papers and to the overall questionable robustness and significance of the literature review. |
An argument is provided against making that decision against the conference minutes. |
|
Reviewer 2 |
5. The discussion section is not a discussion section. It is the main analysis of the findings of the research. The authors need to add a separate discussion section that is structured as stated in the journal's guidelines. |
The analysis of results and discussion are organized according to the evaluator's recommendations. |
We look forward to your comments and hope to hear from you soon.
Thank you very much
_
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to read your paper on „Machine Learning and Blockchain: A Bibliometric Study on Security and Privacy“.
The research proposes an agenda to explore new applications and foster collaboration between researchers and countries in this interdisciplinary field.
A bibliometric analysis is proposed based on the PRISMA-2020 parameters in the Scopus and Web of Science databases.
The article is interesting, it introduces an idea that is promising and the its’ content is strong practically.
The problem described in the article is relevant, the topic is actual and of interest.
Summing up, I would like to point out that I rate the substantive level of the article very highly, the study was written in accordance with the rules of writing scientific articles.
Generally, the paper provides an in-depth literature review regarding the topic covered, by combining and contrasting the latest research in the field. The reviewed literature is up-to-date and adequately chosen and presented to explain the research motive and the gap in knowledge. Please, discuss these papers:
1. Determination of the efficiency of implementing blockchain technology into the logistics systems. Business Management, Issue 4, 2022, pp.52-67, https://bm.uni-svishtov.bg/title.asp?title=2785
2. Big Data Tools in Processing Information from Open Sources. IEEE First International Conference on System Analysis & Intelligent Computing (SAIC-2018)) Kyiv, Ukraine, pp.256-260, DOI: 10.1109/SAIC.2018.8516-800
3. Potential of Big Data Analytics for Managing Value Creation. 2022 International Conference on Communications, Information, Electronic and Energy Systems (CIEES), 2022, pp. 1-6, DOI: 10.1109/CIEES55704.2022.9990882
4. Exercise of Machine Learning Using Some Python Tools and Techniques. CBU International conference proceedings 2018: Innovations in Science and Education, 21.-23.03.2018, pp.1062-1070. https://doi.org/10.12955/cbup.v6.1295
5. Analysis of the international experience of implementing blockchain technology. Access to science, business, innovation in digital economy, ACCESS Press, 2(2): 138-149. https://doi.org/10.46656/access.2021.2.2(2)
I believe that this paper will be of interest to the readership of your journal, becose the findings complement previous studies.
I hope my comments will be helpfulI hope my comments will be helpful
Author Response
September 18th, 2023
Dear
Information – Editorial Team
Kind regards
In accordance with the suggestions of the reviewers in our article “Machine Learning and Blockchain: A Bibliometric Study on Security and Privacy”, the following changes were made, properly marked with blue letters in the article:
|
Reviewer |
Comment |
Answer |
|
Reviewer 3 |
Generally, the paper provides an in-depth literature review regarding the topic covered, by combining and contrasting the latest research in the field. The reviewed literature is up-to-date and adequately chosen and presented to explain the research motive and the gap in knowledge. Please, discuss these papers: |
Recommended documents included |
We look forward to your comments and hope to hear from you soon.
Thank you very much
_
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors made some improvements but still there are not all issues are fixed. Also, the author responses are too short and don’t explain the changes made.
1. The following reference wasn’t added:
Kechagias, E. P., Gayialis, S. P., Papadopoulos, G. A., & Papoutsis, G. (2023). An Ethereum-Based Distributed Application for Enhancing Food Supply Chain Traceability. Foods, 12(6), 1220.
2. Section 4.4 presents no contract to other studies. It just mentions some other studies. The authors still haven’t explained what are the main innovations and contributions of the research that sets it one step further than previous ones.
3. As stated in the previous round :
The main issue is the methodology followed to conduct the literature review. The search is limited only to the titles of papers and not their abstracts. In most cases, the titles alone can't reflect adequately the paper's content and, therefore, papers should be searched based on titles, abstracts, and keywords. Also, a great number of papers were excluded from the study (91 conference papers). The studied topic is highly technical and popular in conferences so these papers shouldn't be excluded. Also, the authors falsely state that they have excluded conference proceedings (they have in fact excluded conference papers, not just proceedings). If a research excludes conference papers there needs to be a clear and significant reason for this. These major issues lead to a quite small amount of studied papers and to the overall questionable robustness and significance of the literature review.
The authors only provided a brief response stating that conference papers typically remain in prototype phase. This may be true for some papers but a great amount of them also presents final systems. Therefore, conference proceedings should be reviewed and only the ones that present unproven prototypes should be excluded.
4. Sections 4.1-4.3 are not part of the discussion section. They should be part of the main analysis. Also, the findings of the research need to be better discussed and elaborated.
The use of English has not improved. Perhaps the authors should ask for professional help.
Author Response
September 22, 2023
Dear
Information – Editorial Team
Kind regards
In accordance with the suggestions of the reviewers in our article “Machine Learning and Blockchain: A Bibliometric Study on Security and Privacy”, the following changes were made, properly marked with red letters in the article:
|
Reviewer |
Comment |
Response |
|
R |
The following reference wasn’t added: Kechagias, E. P., Gayialis, S. P., Papadopoulos, G. A., & Papoutsis, G. (2023). An Ethereum-Based Distributed Application for Enhancing Food Supply Chain Traceability. Foods, 12(6), 1220. |
Suggested reference added |
|
R |
Section 4.4 presents no contract to other studies. It just mentions some other studies. The authors still haven’t explained what are the main innovations and contributions of the research that sets it one step further than previous ones. |
The contrast of the findings with other similar studies and how they align with our results is emphasized |
|
R |
The main issue is the methodology followed to conduct the literature review. The search is limited only to the titles of papers and not their abstracts. In most cases, the titles alone can't reflect adequately the paper's content and, therefore, papers should be searched based on titles, abstracts, and keywords. Also, a great number of papers were excluded from the study (91 conference papers). The studied topic is highly technical and popular in conferences so these papers shouldn't be excluded. Also, the authors falsely state that they have excluded conference proceedings (they have in fact excluded conference papers, not just proceedings). If a research excludes conference papers there needs to be a clear and significant reason for this. These major issues lead to a quite small amount of studied papers and to the overall questionable robustness and significance of the literature review.
The authors only provided a brief response stating that conference papers typically remain in prototype phase. This may be true for some papers but a great amount of them also presents final systems. Therefore, conference proceedings should be reviewed and only the ones that present unproven prototypes should be excluded. |
Regarding your concern about searching based solely on article titles, it is important to note that while we initially focused on titles, we also included abstracts and keywords to ensure a comprehensive focus in our search. However, given the limitations in time and resources, conducting a complete and detailed search of all conference proceedings would be a considerable effort and could significantly modify the results and conclusions of our study.
The topic investigated is highly technical and constantly evolving in conferences, leading to a wide variety of approaches and developments in conference proceedings. We are aware of the relevance of these articles; However, our decision to exclude a significant number of them is based on the focus of our study, which focuses on established systems and proven results.
In relation to your observation about the distinction between conference proceedings and articles, we will take into account your suggestion to put it in the future research section to carefully review this distinction so that the exclusion is based on the presence of untested prototypes, as indicated by the PRISMA 2020 methodology. |
|
R |
Sections 4.1-4.3 are not part of the discussion section. They should be part of the main analysis. Also, the findings of the research need to be better discussed and elaborated. |
Sections 4.1 to 4.3 are located in the analysis of the results. The discussion of the results is improved. It seeks to improve research results. |
|
R |
The use of English has not improved. Perhaps the authors should ask for professional help. |
An attempt is made to improve the English in the article. |
We look forward to your comments and hope to hear from you soon.
Thank you very much
_
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have made significant improvements
Some minor English issues remain
