Adoption of Blockchain Technology for Enhanced Traceability of Livestock-Based Products

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In order to uncover the implications of blockchain technology for the food industry, this paper conducts a literature review focusing on the application of blockchain technology in agri-food supply chains, especially in the ASEAN.

 

This research topic is interesting and could offer some insights for both researchers and practitioners. Besides, the introduction of the research problem and the formulation of the review method seems to be clearly and rigorously presented. However, there are several concerns with this paper, which have been detailed below.

 

1. The authors have stated the necessity of the study in the Abstract. Nevertheless, I cannot find the research perspectives and main findings, which are also mandatory in the Abstract. I suggest that the authors complete the Abstract to better convey the key information to the readership.

 

2. In Section 2, the authors look into traceability in the agri-food industry, while in Section 3, they introduce the adaptation of technology and policy in the ASEAN agri-food industry. In these two sections, the analysis of related publications is somehow not exhaustive. The comparisons of state of the art should be more elaborate.

 

 

3. One of the most remarkable characteristics of blockchain technology is the extensive application prospect. Throughout the whole manuscript, the discussion on real-life applications of blockchain technology in agri-food supply chains is absent. I recommend having a higher focus on the practical aspects of the research.

 

 

4. The authors have not presented managerial insights for decision-makers in the industry throughout the whole manuscript. I recommend that the contributions and the managerial insights should be stated in a straight way.

 

 

5. There are some issues with the figures provided in the manuscript. Firstly, the captions of all three figures have no periods; Secondly, the presentation of links between blocks along a blockchain shown in Fig. 2 is common knowledge in the science community. Therefore, I do not think Fig. 2 is necessary; Thirdly, the information that Fig. 1 conveys is repetitive to the paragraph above. I recommend that the authors either delete the repetitive content in the paragraph above or delete Fig. 1.

 

 

 

6. In section 6, the authors put forward the challenges and limitations of the adoption of blockchain technology. However, the presentation of this section is somehow too wordy. I recommend that the authors make this section more concise.

 

 

7. There are several article usage problems in the manuscript. Examples can be found in the following: the article “the” in “the blockchain technology” is not necessary; in line 273, 293 and 431, “lack of” should be “the lack of”. I suggest that the authors get their manuscript professionally proofread to revise the expression and organization, thereby improving readability and making the manuscript more succinct.

 

In conclusion, the current draft has several shortcomings, as detailed above. In particular, the practical value of the research and the robustness of the findings need to be explicitly detailed. However, they are not serious issues, and the authors should be able to address these concerns in the revised manuscript adequately. In its present form, the draft does not qualify for publication in Sustainability, but it can reach the publication level after adequate modification. Hence, my recommendation as a reviewer is publication after minor revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment for Reviewer 1's response.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Blockchain is a revolutionary technology being adopted in various application areas worldwide.
The topic presented in this article is interesting but the real challenges of implementing and deploying blockchain
in countries like Thailand are missing.
The challenges presented by the author are very general in nature

In section 3, the authors have discussed various technologies like Cloud-Computing, and RFID being currently used in ASEAN member states.
The issues in these technologies for food traceability are missing.
Also, the authors have provided in section 4 a very brief discussion (hardly of 2 pages) of the use of blockchain technology in the context of food traceability in ASEAN member regions, which I believe must be discussed in detail.

There exist various good review articles which have already discussed the usability of blockchain technology for applications like food treaceability in detail.So, this paper must present
the blockchain technology status with real challenges in ASEAN countries like thailand, malaysia.

Author Response

Please see the Reviewer 2's comments responses in attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper has several major issues regarding novelties, writings, and contributions. I have the following comments as follows:

1.       The abstract must indicate the major findings in the last part of it. It should be more scientifically explained, not any informal or casual writing.

2.       What are the fundamental findings that this paper can be published in this reputed journal? You must explain it.

3.       There are several important findings in the literature in this direction. Therefore, it is important to obtain the novel findings of this research. There must be a comparative study with the following articles (Transfer of risk in supply chain management with joint pricing and inventory decision considering shortages; Intelligent servicing strategy for an online-to-offline (O2O) supply chain under demand variability and controllable lead time; A sustainable managerial decision-making problem for a substitutable product in a dual-channel under carbon tax policy; Optimal decisions in a dual-channel competitive green supply chain management under promotional effort; Retailing and servicing strategies for an imperfect production with variable lead time and backorder under online-to-offline environment ) to show the major contributions and findings.

4.       Keywords should be perfect. The abstract should contain the details of the study and the findings in a very constructive way.

5.       The introduction should be based on the exact research gap, and the literature review should be based on the specific keywords-based review; finally, make an author's contribution table to show the novelty and effectiveness of the study. Show all referenced papers in the table to show the contribution of this study.

6.       Please write the significant findings in conclusions. Do not mention all assumptions which have been indicated within the model.

 

7.       Conclusions should be updated with more findings, limitations, and future extensions.

Author Response

Please see the responses for Reviewer3's comments in attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have addressed the queries to some extent which is acceptable.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper can be accepted for publication.