please see the file uploaded[November 03, 2021 02:20] Please, amend:
1) 2.2.1. Search Strategy has the same text as inclusion exclusion criteria subsection – here those a labelled as ‘limiters’ – ‘sources with qualitative, quantitative or mixed designs. Another limiter was the year of publication, with sources published between 2011 and 2021 utilized for the current review. According to Creswell (16), relying on sources published within a ten-year gap facilitates the use of updated information, hence improving the reliability and credibility of the study results. Lastly, the selected sources had all/some participants from the US, were peer-reviewed materials and contained full-texts’
2) There is only 1 exclusion criterion in text – ‘eliminating sources with participants not directly involved in NPOs or blockchain technology’
3) No data analysis section
4) Most of the findings chapter is ‘Characteristics of the Included Studies’ section, the latter text focuses quite a bit on the methodologies and other such details, e.g. ‘In particular, Rugeviciute and Mehrpouya (15) conducted an inductive qualitative study involving analysis of empirical data obtained from different sources to interrogate the enablers and barriers of blockchain technology, with the results disclosing the institutional, regulatory and technological aspects which impact sustainable NPOs’ development. However, similar to Kshetri (1723), which did not disclose the sampling technique used in the research, Rugeviciute and Mehrpouya demonstrated a significant methodological weakness through inadequately explaining the sampling technique and the exact number of empirical sources utilized in the qualitative analysis, thereby inhibiting the findings’ reliability.’ – consider focusing more on the actual outcomes
4.1) The is also a concern regarding the chosen sources, specifically, their description in Matrix, e.g. Kshetri (2017) – ‘Qualitative desk-based analysis’ – is it primary data? Pittman (2016) – Qualitative descriptive study- doctrinal analysis etc; a lot the sources do not seem to be based on primary data
Please, make sure to adjust it in Results, amend Discussion and Conclusion is needed
5) First half of Discussion uses the same sources for comparison – Wright; Farnaghi and Mansourian; Berentsen – consider expanding the reference use here a bit
6) Add a section on Limitations in Conclusion
7) Please, check the latest OR, there are quite a few instances where full sentences are highlighted, consider reducing the similarity index a bit