Blockchain Projects in Environmental Sector: Theoretical and Practical Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research indicates a new innovative topic of application of blockchain technology in the analysis of various environmental domains.
In doing so, bibliometric analysis with VOS viewer and a topic analysis using BERT model are combined, which represents an interesting research approach for proving clearly established research approaches.
The text includes an adequate overview of the relevant theoretical framework, a well-described work methodology and clearly presented results, discussion and research findings.
Also, the key research challenges are presented, which gives the work additional scientific value. The only recommendation is that in chapter 7, Conclusions, the key answers to the posed research questions should be transferred from the discussion, which would give additional emphasis to the valuable results presented in this paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for your constructive feedback and the positive remarks on our manuscript. We appreciate your recognition of our research approach, comprehensive theoretical framework, and the clarity of our methodology and findings. 

We agree that emphasizing the key answers to our research questions in the conclusions would enhance the impact and clarity of our findings. Accordingly, we have revised Chapter 7 to explicitly reflect the answers previously discussed in the paper. Specifically, we have integrated a summary of the key findings directly into the conclusions section to directly address the research questions, providing a cohesive and strengthened closing argument. These changes are intended to make the conclusions more robust and reflective of the research outcomes.These modifications are marked in red in the revised manuscript for easy identification and review.

We believe these changes address your recommendation effectively and enhance the manuscript's contribution to the field. We are grateful for the opportunity to improve our work with your insightful suggestions and hope that the revisions meet your expectations.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

Best regards,

Matteo Vaccargiu

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is a bibliometric approach to the application of blockchain technology in the field of environmental sustainability. Most of the work is agreed, but the logic and writing of the article need to be improved.

1) The title of this study does not reflect the sustainable application of blockchain technology, and I think the title needs to be revised.

2) The introduction is basically OK, and you can understand the motivation of this research after reading it. However, this does not show its contribution against existing research.

3) The content of Section 2 is bad, it is not enough to present these studies. I suggest that the author make a classification summary of relevant literature to show the necessity of this study.

4) This study examined the literature in Scopus, why not use SSCI and SCI articles from WOS? I am not asking the author to follow this, it needs to be explained at least. In contrast, the amount of non-English literature needs no introduction.

5) There are almost no literatures before 2016. This may be due to the fact that key concepts have not yet been formed. This either does not take into account the previous sample, or requires a replacement of similar keywords.

6) I suggest that the author add some discussion on future research trends and issues.

7) As a review type of quantitative article, the number of references should be insufficient.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. We appreciate your insights which have greatly assisted us in enhancing the quality and clarity of our manuscript. Below, we address each of your points and outline the corresponding revisions made to our paper:

Title: We have revised the title to "Blockchain Projects in Environmental Sector: Theoretical and Practical Analysis" to better reflect the core focus of the study on blockchain's application in environmental sustainability. This change emphasizes both the theoretical and practical exploration of blockchain within the environmental sector.

Introduction: To clearly delineate our contributions against existing research, we have added a specific paragraph in the introduction outlining the objectives and the unique scientific contributions of our paper. This addition is designed to immediately inform readers of the unique angle and findings our research presents.

Related Works: Based on your suggestion, we have expanded the "Related Works" section to include a comprehensive classification summary of the literature. We also introduced a summary table that highlights discussion topics, related works, similarities with previous research, and our unique contributions. This structural enhancement significantly strengthens the section by clearly articulating the necessity and novelty of our study.

Justification Scopus Selection: We provided a detailed justification for selecting Scopus as our primary database, citing its extensive interdisciplinary coverage and robust analytical tools which are crucial for our study’s aims. We also acknowledged the potential inclusion of other databases like WOS and IEEE Xplore in future work to broaden the research scope.

Literature Timeline: We clarified in the manuscript that the surge in blockchain research post-2015 aligns with significant advancements in its applications, particularly in sustainability. This timeline focuses our analysis on the most relevant and impactful studies, given our specific research goals.

Future Research: We expanded our discussion on potential future research directions, detailing specific areas such as regulatory challenges, ethical considerations, and security vulnerabilities that future studies could explore to further the field.

Reference: Additional references have been incorporated to strengthen the "Related Works" section. We also clarified that while our study provides a broad overview of evolving trends over time through topic modeling, it does not focus on individual research works, which explains the selective citation of articles directly analyzed.

All these modifications are marked in red in the revised manuscript for easy identification and review.

We trust that these revisions address your concerns and strengthen the paper substantially. We are grateful for your thorough review and guidance, which have been instrumental in refining our manuscript. We look forward to your feedback and hope that our paper now meets the journal's standards for publication.

Best regards, Matteo Vaccargiu

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

“An Analysis of Decentralised Systems in Environmental-Related Projects: Theoretical and Practical Perspectives” provides a bibliographic analysis of literature on blockchain and the environment as well as Github projects.  It is an interesting approach to an important area.  The paper, however, has three areas where it needs improvement prior to publication. 

 

The first two areas are the Related Works section and the conclusion, both of which need to be expanded.  The conclusion is only seven sentences broken into four paragraphs.  Further, the Related Works section only has five short paragraphs that address one or two papers each.  This is not a comprehensive review for the field, as is illustrated by the fact that the review itself examines 1,120 papers. The third yet related issue is the lack of citations.  I would expect that a paper taking a bibliographic analysis would have 100-200 citations.  However, this paper only has 21.  A revision of the Related Works section will help alleviate this problem.  None of these are difficult issues to fix but will take some time to revise.  I hope the comments are helpful.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you for your insightful comments and constructive suggestions regarding our manuscript. We appreciate the opportunity to refine our paper and strengthen the presentation of our research findings. 

We acknowledge your point on the need to expand the Related Works section to provide a more comprehensive review. In response, we have extended this section by including a broader range of studies that reflect the diversity of applications and methodologies related to blockchain in environmental projects. While our focus was primarily on literature reviews and practical projects that share methodologies and objectives with our study, we have now clarified this intent at the beginning of the section and expanded our discussion to include a wider array of relevant works, thereby enhancing the depth and breadth of our review.

In light of your feedback, we have revised the Conclusions section to provide a more detailed summary of the results and a clearer outline of potential future works. This section has been restructured to better articulate the implications of our findings and their relevance to ongoing research in the field, thus offering a more substantial closure to our study. 

We understand the expectation for a higher citation count in a bibliometric analysis. Although our initial focus was on providing a thematic overview rather than citing individual papers extensively, we have addressed this by incorporating additional citations that highlight significant contributions within the field, thereby enriching the context and supporting our analysis. This revision not only increases the citation count a bit but also ties our discussions more closely to established research, enhancing the academic rigor of our paper.

It is also important to clarify that our bibliometric approach was designed to capture broad trends and overarching themes in the application of blockchain within the environmental sector, rather than focusing on specific research papers. This approach informed our original lower citation count, as our goal was to map out thematic rather than individual contributions. We have now expanded on this explanation within the manuscript to make our methodological choices transparent to readers and reviewers alike.

These modifications are marked in red in the revised manuscript for easy identification and review.

We hope that these revisions adequately address the concerns you have raised, and we believe that the changes made have significantly strengthened the manuscript. We are grateful for your guidance which has been invaluable in enhancing the clarity and depth of our research presentation. We look forward to your feedback and are optimistic that our manuscript now meets the publication criteria.

Thank you once again for your thorough review and helpful recommendations.

Best regards,

Matteo Vaccargiu