Blockchain-Augmented Digital Supply Chain Management: A Way to Sustainable Business

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

1.       The article has done enough justice to the tile.

2.       Figure 1 needs to be improvised. First, the edges of the images are cropped, and the text is hard to read.

3.       An abbreviation table can help the readers as expansions to many acronyms are missing.

4.       The article is lagging on key points that could add more value if the author provides a brief touch point on non-repudiation and proof of origin as they provide a key role in the supply chain.  Non-repudiation : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2021.12.001

5.       The author can also consider points on the blockchain application for the supply chain in agriculture. Table 5. Application of blockchain in agriculture for the supply chain of https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12091333

6.     Check Appendix 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your kind comments and valid suggestions which have helped to make our article flow better and be more coherent. We have taken on board these suggestions and explained the changes and replied to your comments in bold below your comments and suggestions for the ease of the reader. Changes and adjustments in the article have been track-changed.

The Authors

1. The article has done enough justice to the tile.

Thank you for this kind comment much appreciated.

2. Figure 1 needs to be improvised. First, the edges of the images are cropped, and the text is hard to read.

Thank you for this comment. We have improved the image as requested. Refer figure 1.

3. An abbreviation table can help the readers as expansions to many acronyms are missing.

Thank you. We have added an abbreviation list before the introduction. We did not put it in a table so as not to change the sequence of the rest of the tables in the article. (decide whether to put in a table and change the sequence of the rest of the tables or put as a list)

4. The article is lagging on key points that could add more value if the author provides a brief touch point on non-repudiation and proof of origin as they provide a key role in the supply chain.  Non-repudiation : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2021.12.001

Thank you. Agreed, we have added this as suggested. Refer to track changes in lines 125 - 134

5. The author can also consider points on the blockchain application for the supply chain in agriculture. Table 5. Application of blockchain in agriculture for the supply chain of https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12091333

Thank you. Agreed, we have added this as suggested. Refer to track changes in lines 305- 313

6.    Check the Appendix 

Thank you. Agreed, this appendix was wrongly left there from the template of the journal. It has been deleted.

7. Minor spell check

The Article was proofread for spelling mistakes and grammatical errors by one of the co-authors who is a native English Speaker with a high-level certification in the English Language.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper discusses the concept of Digital Supply Chain exploring the advanced features (with advantages, and issues) brought by Blockchain Technology.

The topic is interesting and worth of investigation..but the paper is failing in its purpose because the manuscript is bad organized and not clear.

A very major review is required,  starting to address at least the following comments.

 

Abstract

1) The abstract is vague and it will be difficult for readers to understand what is the topic addressed by the research paper. Digital supply chain, ok: but what this paper is about? Please clarify

 

Introduction

2) The first sentence is unclear. please rephrase.

3) This section is very vague. Authors should explain the topic of their research paper and add a section where the structure of the paper is described.

4) Maybe, the basic concepts of the theoretical foundations (Section 2) should be merged in the introduction and then expanded in the section 2.

 

Section 2: 

5) I understand that authors care about the concepts of Blockchain, Supply Chain Management and Digital Supply Chain Management to such an extent to discuss them individually and indepedently.

I think that it can be accepted but the paper must be organized so as that the readers know what is the authors' strategy to explain the research carried out. 

In this current form, this paper is confused and it is not even clear what are the issues undertaken and the novelties that they want to propose.

 

6) A state of the art is not clearly provided. Authors should list the papers that most impact and inspire their research.

As a valuable contribution to start with I suggest:

- Chang, A., El-Rayes, N., & Shi, J. (2022). Blockchain technology for supply chain management: A comprehensive review. FinTech, 1(2), 191-205.

 

Moreover I suggest to discuss also practical applications of BC Technology in supply chain like:

 

- Chiacchio, F., D’Urso, D., Oliveri, L. M., Spitaleri, A., Spampinato, C., & Giordano, D. (2022). A Non-Fungible Token Solution for the Track and Trace of Pharmaceutical Supply Chain. Applied Sciences, 12(8), 4019.

 

- Sunny, J., Undralla, N., & Pillai, V. M. (2020). Supply chain transparency through blockchain-based traceability: An overview with demonstration. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 150, 106895.

 

Section 4 Methodology:

7) The biggest issue of this paper is that it is not clear the research address that authors are taking from the beginning. In section 4 they present a methodology...without have never discussed previously what is the aim of this research paper. I suggest to organize the paper better at the beginning.

8) The methodology is not clear. Is that split in those subsections?

 

Section 4 Discussion

9) There is an additional section 4 which is the discussion. I think it must be the 5th.

 

Section 7 Limitations

 

Authors should explain the focus of their papers also in the introduction.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your kind comments and valid suggestions which have helped to make our article flow better and be more coherent. We have taken on board these suggestions and explained the changes and replied to your comments in bold below your comments and suggestions for the ease of the reader. Changes and adjustments in the article have been track-changed.

1. This paper discusses the concept of Digital Supply Chain exploring the advanced features (with advantages, and issues) brought by Blockchain Technology.

Thank you for this kind comment much appreciated.

1. The topic is interesting and worth of investigation..but the paper is failing in its purpose because the manuscript is bad organized and not clear. A very major review is required,  starting to address at least the following comments.

Thank you for this kind comment and for the chance to address the concerns and issues identified. Much appreciated.

 

Abstract

1) The abstract is vague and it will be difficult for readers to understand what is the topic addressed by the research paper. Digital supply chain, ok: but what this paper is about? Please clarify

 Thank you. Agreed, we have added more information to address the identified issues. Refer to track changes in lines 17 - 31

Introduction

2) The first sentence is unclear. please rephrase.

 Thank you. Agreed, we have rephrased the first sentence to address the identified issue. Refer to track changes in lines 38-39

3) This section is very vague. Authors should explain the topic of their research paper and add a section where the structure of the paper is described.

Thank you. Agreed, we have added a paragraph in the introduction to explain the topic of the research and a paragraph to address your comment on the structure of the paper. Please refer to  track changes in lines 73 - 109

4) Maybe, the basic concepts of the theoretical foundations (Section 2) should be merged in the introduction and then expanded in the section 2.

Thank you. Agreed, we have taken your suggestion on board and merged the theoretical foundations (Section 2) in the introduction and then expanded in section 2. Please refer to  track changes in lines 58 - 78

Section 2: 

5) I understand that authors care about the concepts of Blockchain, Supply Chain Management and Digital Supply Chain Management to such an extent to discuss them individually and indepedently.

I think that it can be accepted but the paper must be organized so as that the readers know what is the authors' strategy to explain the research carried out. 

In this current form, this paper is confused and it is not even clear what are the issues undertaken and the novelties that they want to propose.

 Thank you. Agreed, we have taken your suggestion on board and now the article seems more coherent and flows better.

6) A state of the art is not clearly provided. Authors should list the papers that most impact and inspire their research.

As a valuable contribution to start with I suggest:

- Chang, A., El-Rayes, N., & Shi, J. (2022). Blockchain technology for supply chain management: A comprehensive review. FinTech, 1(2), 191-205.

 

Moreover I suggest to discuss also practical applications of BC Technology in supply chain like:

 

- Chiacchio, F., D’Urso, D., Oliveri, L. M., Spitaleri, A., Spampinato, C., & Giordano, D. (2022). A Non-Fungible Token Solution for the Track and Trace of Pharmaceutical Supply Chain. Applied Sciences, 12(8), 4019.

 

- Sunny, J., Undralla, N., & Pillai, V. M. (2020). Supply chain transparency through blockchain-based traceability: An overview with demonstration. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 150, 106895.

  Thank you. Agreed, we have taken your suggestion on board and added these articles. Now the article seems more coherent and flows better. Please refer to  track changes in lines 304 – 337.

Section 4 Methodology:

7) The biggest issue of this paper is that it is not clear the research address that authors are taking from the beginning. In section 4 they present a methodology...without have never discussed previously what is the aim of this research paper. I suggest to organize the paper better at the beginning.

Thank you. Agreed, we have taken your suggestion on board and added the aim in the introduction and linked this to the methodology section. Now the article seems more coherent and flows better. Please refer to track changes in lines 98 - 109

 

8) The methodology is not clear. Is that split in those subsections?

 Thank you. Agreed, we have taken your suggestion on board and linked the aim to the methodology section and put an introduction to the methodology to explain the reason for the different sections and their value in addressing the objective of the article. Now the article seems more coherent and flows better. Please refer to track changes in lines 98 – 109.

 

Section 4 Discussion

9) There is an additional section 4 which is the discussion. I think it must be the 5th.

Thank you for noticing this. we have changed this. Please refer to track changes.

10. Authors should explain the focus of their papers also in the introduction.

  Thank you. Agreed, we have added more information in the introduction to address the identified issues. Refer to track changes in line 61- 81 and 98 - 109.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

authors have addressed the comments I reported and they did a good job.