Product Traceability and Supply Chain Sustainability of Black Soybeans as Raw Materials for Soy Sauce in Maintaining Quality and Safety

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The concept of the paper is good. However, the following comments must be addressed before considering this paper.

1. Improve the Abstract.

2. The Introduction section is very poor. In a research article, the introduction section must be very strong with the motivations of this paper, which is missing in this paper. Moreover, the disadvantages of the existing schemes must be discussed to motivate this new work.

3. Mention point-wise contributions in the Introduction section. The last paragraph of the Introduction should be the structure of the paper.

4. The Literature Review is poor. The authors must include some more recent schemes. As a separate section is not given, the Introduction section should be very strong. Also, the following papers must be cited to improve this section, as well as the Reference section:

a) Traceability model based on improved witness mechanism

b) Revisiting shift cipher technique for amplified data security

c) A robust drug recall supply chain management system using hyperledger blockchain ecosystem

d) Boosting image watermarking authenticity spreading secrecy from counting-based secret-sharing

e) Profile Based Access Control Model in Cloud Computing Environment

f) Multiobjective mathematical optimization model for municipal solid waste management with economic analysis of reuse/recycling recovered waste materials

g) Multiauthority CP-ABE-based access control model for IoT-enabled healthcare infrastructure 

5. A table can be given to summarize existing works.

6. Why black soybean is considered in the proposed scheme?

7. How the performance of the prediction is increased? 

8. Discuss Fig. 2.

9. Search stage is completely unclear. How sustainability is increased?

10. Which entities are involved for energy management? 

11. Discuss the proposed work in steps or algorithmsl?

12. In section 3, add the “Experimental Environment” section.

13. What is the source of dataset? Whether it is authentic or not? Mention clearly.

14. How the results of Figure 7 are generated?  

15. Technical details about results are missing.

16. Merge Sections 3 and 4.

17. What is the novelty of this work? It is hard to identify from the current version of this paper.

18. Key terms of the equations must be defined.

19. Use a well-known software to draw the diagrams of the results section.

20. The organization of the paper must be improved. The paper must be formatted properly.

21. The Conclusion section must be reduced. It should be precise.

22. The Reference section must be improved significantly. 

The English language must be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The findings of the study should be succinctly and accurately summarised in the abstract

2. In the "Introduction", the research gaps and the innovations of this paper are too general, and it is recommended that this part be carefully revised.

3. The details of Figure 1 cannot be seen clearly after zooming in, so it is suggested to convert it into a vector diagram.

The language needs to be carefully corrected and there are still some grammatical errors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The subject addressed in the manuscript is relevant and needs to be discussed. The authors present interesting results, but the figures presented could have been of better quality (perhaps the pdf format, which was provided to us, may have disfigured some images). Mainly Figures 1 and 2.

In Figure 2, the relationship between the 3 variables presented was not clear. Wouldn't it be better to present three graphs (one for each variable) next to each other?

I liked the results presented and their discussion. However, I found the conclusion too long. I believe it is possible to synthesize it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have not addressed all the previous comments. The following comments must be addressed before considering this paper:

1. The Introduction section is very poor. In a research article, the introduction section must be very strong with the motivations of this paper, which is missing in this paper. Moreover, the disadvantages of the existing schemes must be discussed to motivate this new work.

2. Mention point-wise contributions in the Introduction section. The last paragraph of the Introduction should be the structure of the paper.

3. The Literature Review is poor. The authors must include some more recent schemes. As a separate section is not given, the Introduction section should be very strong. Also, the following papers must be cited to improve this section, as well as the Reference section:

a) Traceability model based on improved witness mechanism

b) Revisiting shift cipher technique for amplified data security

c) A robust drug recall supply chain management system using hyperledger blockchain ecosystem

d) Boosting image watermarking authenticity spreading secrecy from counting-based secret-sharing

e) Profile Based Access Control Model in Cloud Computing Environment

f) Multiobjective mathematical optimization model for municipal solid waste management with economic analysis of reuse/recycling recovered waste materials

g) Multiauthority CP-ABE-based access control model for IoT-enabled healthcare infrastructure 

4. A table can be given to summarize existing works.

5. Why black soybean is considered in the proposed scheme?

6. Fig. 2 can be removed.

7. Discuss how sustainability is increased?

8. Which entities are involved for energy management? 

9. In section 3, add the “Experimental Environment” section.

10. What is the source of dataset? Whether it is authentic or not? Mention clearly.

11. Technical details about results are missing.

12. Merge Sections 3 and 4.

13. What is the novelty of this work? It is hard to identify from the current version of this paper.

14. Key terms of the equations must be defined.

15. The organization of the paper must be improved. The paper must be formatted properly.

16. The Conclusion section must be reduced. It should be precise. Complete it within 300 words.

17. The Reference section must be improved significantly. 

The English language must be improved. 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed all the comments.