Exploring the Barriers against Using Cryptocurrencies in Managing Construction Supply Chain Processes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This survey examines the use of cryptocurrencies in the construction supply chain process. This is an interesting study. However, the following comments require careful revision by the authors:

• What is the theoretical basis for this research? Not clear.
• Please merge Sections 2 and 3 and rename the new section Literature Review.
• Although the authors list the views of many researchers, they lack criticality. Please highlight clear logic and criticality in the new literature review section.
• In the Research methods section, please explain Fig. 1 and 2 more clearly.
• In addition, Fig. 3 is redundant, please clearly state the meaning of this figure in the text.
• In the Data analysis (Step 3) section, please give the version of SPSS software.
• Although this manuscript examines the reliability and validity of the questionnaire by means of factor analysis, some key literature on questionnaire processing has been omitted.

e.g.,

Entrepreneurial fear of failure: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(5), 106041.

Covin, JG, Rigtering, JC, Hughes, M., Kraus, S., Cheng, CF, & Bouncken, RB (2020). Individual and team entrepreneurial orientation: Scale development and configurations for success. Journal of Business Research, 112, 1-12.

Deng, R., Benckendorff, P., & Gannaway, D. (2020). Learner engagement in MOOCs: Scale development and validation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(1), 245-262.

Li, X., Du, J., & Long, H. (2020). Mechanism for Green Development Behavior and Performance of Industrial Enterprises (GDBP-IE) Using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(22), 8450.

Li, X., Du, J., & Long, H. (2020). Understanding the Green Development Behavior and Performance of Industrial Enterprises (GDBP-IE): Scale Development and Validation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17 (5), 1716.

Lytras, MD, Visvizi, A., Chopdar, PK, Sarirete, A., & Alhalabi, W. (2021). Information Management in Smart Cities: Turning end users' views into multi-item scale development, validation, and policy- making recommendations. International Journal of Information Management, 56, 102146.

Gupta, S., & Agrawal, R. (2018). Environmentally responsible consumption: Construct definition, scale development, and validation. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(4), 523-536.

etc.

• Please split Section 5 into 5. Results and 6. Discussion. Also, a broad and in-depth comparison of the results of this study with similar studies is provided in a new Discussion section.
• The current Conclusions section is too long, please report only the new findings, management implications, limitations, and future research directions of this manuscript in this section.

In conclusion, the authors are invited to carefully revise this manuscript in accordance with these recommendations. I sincerely look forward to receiving the revised version. 

Author Response

We are glad to hear that the reviewer found our manuscript interesting. We have revised the manuscript according to the suggestions of the reviewer. Kindly find the uploaded response file for the detailed responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The introduction is not very useful. Therefore, the introduction should be extended very carefully. The introduction section should be rewritten again. The introduction should highlight the study's novelty and motivation and put some literature without any useful explanation; in fact, the introduction should be clearly stated research questions and targets first. Then answer several questions: Why is the topic important (or why do you study on it)? What are the research questions? What has been studied? What are your contributions? Why is it to propose this particular method? This study's major defect is the debate or argument is not clearly stated in the introduction session.

I would suggest the author improve your theoretical discussion and arrives at your debate or argument. In addition, the background introduction should be condensed. The literature review is not presented in a good structure, and at the end of LR, you should come out with a paragraph to conclude your discussion, in this paragraph, you can highlight the novelty of your study also, it means what the LR has done and what you want to do. The literature review must highlight the novelty and contribution of the study, but these sections, which the authors provided only are related works and not literature review. Authors must carefully revise these sections.

There are grammatical mistakes in the paper. 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the constructive comments. Kindly find the uploaded response file for the detailed responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

There is no significant novelty after reading the abstract.

In Section 2, many studies in the area of construction in supply chains are ignored. This part of the paper is very important. The authors should justify your contribution in this section.

Section 3 is also a literature review. I suggest to have a literature review with different subsections.

Most importantly, the research gaps are not clear and justified. How your contributions can fill the research gaps? I suggest you reading high-quality works in this area from well-known authors like Prof. Fathollhai-Fard, Dr. Yazdani and Dr. Gheibi and so on.

At the beginning of Section 5, provide more justifications to address the subsections.

I suggest to separate the conclusion with managerial insights.

All in all, this paper is not well-written and I am not positive to recommend it for publication.

 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the constructive comments. Kindly find the uploaded response file for the detailed responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors carefully revised their manuscript and recommended that it be accepted.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the constructive comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have responded to my comments thoroughly 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the constructive comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have revised the paper very well. Many changes have done. Please, do not use track-change service and allow me to see the changes by another color. I think, in the area of buildings and construction supply chains, the following works should be added as well: 

Constructing a smart framework for supplying the biogas energy in green buildings using an integration of response surface methodology, artificial intelligence and petri net modelling. Energy Conversion and Management, 248, 114794.

Production scheduling of off-site prefabricated construction components considering sequence dependent due dates. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-17.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the constructive comments. We indicate our changes with red and green colors. Red-colored text represents the changes made at the first revision and green-colored text represent the changes made at this revision (second revision). In addition, the recommended works is now cited (kindly follow green-colored text). We would like thank the reviewer one more time for the constructive comments.