A Blockchain-Based Audit Trail Mechanism: Design and Implementation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article presents a proposal for a blockchain-based audit trail solution. The solution is thoroughly presented, but, to enable a discussion of results, one needs data for comparison, and this is where the article, aiming a scientific journal audience, fails.

After presenting concepts of the Blockchain technology, a section is missing, presenting a state-of-the-art study about existing audit trail mechanisms, with or without using blockchain technology.

This section would enable another section, before the conclusion, where the authors could present comparative results from their solution and from existing solutions, supporting their conclusions that their solution improves security and availability, when compared to existing solutions.

Another aspect that needs further development is explaining why the blockchain monitor component, in the proposed solution, is needed and adds advantages. One could get the information through a DApp and a smart contract, directly from the Blockchain. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review and your useful suggestions.

I attach a document with comments to all your suggestions, explaining the improvements we have done in the revised version of the manuscript.

Thank you very much.

Regards,

Cristina

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

A proper methodology is missing. It would be important to present methods, researach questions, research gap in proper way.   Also, I suggest that you can split a Literature review section from the Introduction text. The conclusions must concisely summarise four compulsory elements: (1) general summary of the article, its results and findings, (2) implications and recommendations for practice, (3) research limitations, (4) suggestions for future research. The language and style of the paper are not always clear and accurate. I would personally recommend an extensive language revision.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review and your useful suggestions.

I attach a document with comments to all your suggestions, explaining the improvements we have done in the revised version of the manuscript.

Thank you very much.

Regards,

Cristina

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article has been improved. Some aspects are still missing, though. A research methodology should always include an activity of comparing  results of the researched solution with the ones from existing solutions.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review and your useful comment.

I attach a document with comments to your suggestion, explaining the improvements we have done in the revised version of the manuscript.

Thank you very much.

Regards,

Cristina

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

lack of crucial literature analysis

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review and your useful comment.

I attach a document with comments to your suggestion, explaining the improvements we have done in the revised version of the manuscript.

Thank you very much.

Regards,

Cristina

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

I propose  analyse how do  Internet of Things and other e-solutions in supply chain management may generate threats