A Literature Review of Blockchain-Based Applications in Supply Chain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. In the abstract, the authors mentioned using three categories of how they divided their literature review of blockchain. However, such categories are not in the abstract. 

2. figures 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 can be a bigger size for readability.

3. Conclusions are missed. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you！

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

First of all, I appreciate the opportunity to review the paper A Literature Review of Blockchain Based Applications in Supply Chain.   There are numerous problems:

·        The abstract is not well written. The most important results/findings must be listed.

·        Scientific writing and citation is not proper. For example: „In 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto[1] published an article named Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System in which he proposed….“ Correct throughout the paper.

·        Scientific paper writing without "we"; "our" (for example lines 216, 217, etc). Correct throughout the paper.

·        Methodology must be stronger. This kind of paper must have a very clear methodology. There are numerous papers for methodology (see Suggested References).

·        The review paper should not just be a list of what everyone has done but should identify trends and gaps in the literature and offer suggestions for furthering the field relative to the specific phenomenon, with a VERY STRONG CRITICAL VIEW AND VERY STRONG METHODOLOGY.

·        The paper lacks scientific research rigor, the research steps are not systematic and objective.

·        Research questions should be formulated.

·        It is necessary to understand the purpose and aim of the paper as well as its "position" in relation to previous research (also gap analysis).

·        The separate section Practical and theoretical implications (or Discussion) is missing. The existing section Discussion is very modest. This confirms the lack of scientific and practical contributions.

·        The paper is descriptive and analytic, not critical and exploratory.

·        Conclusions are missing. Clearly state your unique research contributions in the conclusion section.

·        Limitations of your research must be emphasized

·        Future research directions are missing.

·        Scientific and practical contributions of this paper are questionable.

Suggested References

Denyer, D. & Tranfield, D., (2009). Producing a systematic review. In D. Buchanan & A. Bryman (eds.) The sage handbook of organizational research methods. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, 671-689.

Kilibarda, M., Andrejić, M., & Popović, V. (2020). Research in logistics service quality: a systematic literature review. Transport, 35 (2), 224-235.

 

Morashti, J.A.; An, Y.; Jang, H. A (2022) Systematic Literature Review of Sustainable Packaging in Supply Chain Management. Sustainability, 14, 4921.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you！

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This study offers a review on the use of Blockchain in supply chain by summarizing the current applications of Blockchain technology in supply chain. I have noted the following observations in the manuscript:

1.    Page 2, line 62: 'Our study is from the perspective of the points that blockchain technology promotes the supply chain and summarize the corresponding studies in recent years.' How does this make this review different than the published reviews? For example, Lim, M. K., Li, Y., Wang, C., & Tseng, M. L. (2021). A literature review of blockchain technology applications in supply chains: A comprehensive analysis of themes, methodologies and industries. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 154, 107133. Chang, S. E., & Chen, Y. (2020). When blockchain meets supply chain: A systematic literature review on current development and potential applications. IEEE Access, 8, 62478-62494.

A justification is to be provided so that the readers can differentiate this review from the published reviews on the applications of Blockchain in supply chain. 

2. Figures 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 are not legible. Please improve their resolutions.

3. Section 5 Discussion is not sufficient. Extend this section by focusing more on the recent trends in Blockchain, future avenues and the unique points raised in this review. 

4. Add section 6 Conclusion to your study where the summary of the review can be provided. 

5. Page 1, line 29: In recent 'years'.

6. Page 2, line 39: Remove '2' if it is not a reference, otherwise present it as a reference

7. Page 2, line 46: trend (remove y).

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you！

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper can be accepted for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have addressed my comments. Goodluck to them.