Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38984295›Full record

ReviewHeliyon2024

Blockchain governance and trust: A multi-sector thematic systematic review and exploration of future research directions.

Arun Teja Polcumpally, Krishan Kumar Pandey, Anil Kumar, Ashutosh Samadhiya

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Arun Teja PolcumpallyPacta, India.
Krishan Kumar PandeyOffice of Doctoral Studies, O. P. Jindal Global University, India.
Anil KumarGuildhall School of Business and Law, London Metropolitan University, London, N7 8DB, United Kingdom.
Ashutosh SamadhiyaJindal Global Business School, O. P. Jindal Global University, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper aims to critically examine the scholarly work conducted in blockchain (BC) governance. Without venturing into the wide range of governance paradigms, this research considers governance structures based on trust as a foundation for BC governance. A thematic systematic literature review is conducted to understand the literature on this topic, employing the SALSA (Search, Appraisal, Synthesis and Analysis) technique. An examination of 155 papers shows that using BC technology (BCT) replaces the cognitive attribution of trust in the material and human-independent code. It is also found that further research anchored to the 'trust' concept is required in building BC governance structures. To provide the direction in which the literature is travelling, future research questions on trust and governance are documented. In general, the literature review suggests that BC has the potential to revolutionize the way in which businesses operate. By improving transparency, efficiency, and security, BC can help businesses to reduce costs, improve customer satisfaction, and make better decisions. This research can help policymakers, industrialists, and researchers to identify where BC governance is being used and which aspects of governance are to be focused on. This paper is a general review of literature and evidence on contemporary developmental issues.

Indexed as

Blockchain technologyGovernanceMulti-sectorSystematic literature reviewTrust

Identifiers

PMID38984295
PMCPMC11231554

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.