Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper deals with interesting topics which is of huge importance regarding its application. The paper is classified as a research article but the structure does not fit that form. Introduction is acceptable, although it should be improved in some parts (TPS ambigious, references, …), while the rest of the work must be rearranged at all. The methodology section does not summarize the methodology. The sections 3 and 4 should be splitted into metodology and literature review. Figures should be regularly referred in the text and currently brings almost no added value.

Discussion and most of text is to generalized and does not enter into details. Discussion is not a result of own  research discussed here. Complete data should be available to reviewers and not on special request from corresponding author. Therefore I suggest to reject the paper in current form or at least request the major review with strictly following the instructions for authors and including some new results.

In case the authors decide to improve the manuscript, here are some issues to be solved: 
*page 2, line 55 – summarize references [8-12];
*page 2 line 59 – reference failure Bao et al. [13]
*page3 line 223 –include the author name for [44]
*page 3 line 235 - include the author name for [48]. Algorand Blockchain web address should not be part of the main text, shift it into the references with proper citation.
*page 4 line 175 - [33, 34]
*figures, tables citation is not concise or missing. Table/figure captions and titles should be improved as well.
*page4 lines157-163 – it is unclear the meaning of 7 TPS which is comparable to bitcoin.  TPS is predefined as Transaction  Processing Speed, but it is discussed in the context of Transaction Per Second. Please make it clear.
*please review the manuscript for type-writting mistakes, duplication, missed words, unclear or unconcise statement, etc.
*page 6 lines 283-284 – public network is meaningfull … vs. Such a private network …  What kind of network are they discussing?

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

An English language is fine to me with minor failures, mostly type-writting mistakes or duplicating/missing words. The content is easy to understand.

Author Response

Response for the Reviewer 1

Dear reviewer, 

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. We very much appreciate the time you took to review the article. We have tried to improve the article , as much as possible, to reflect the requests you have made. We have updated the article to meet your requirements.

Comments part 1:

The paper deals with interesting topics which is of huge importance regarding its application. The paper is classified as a research article but the structure does not fit that form. Introduction is acceptable, although it should be improved in some parts (TPS ambigious, references, …), while the rest of the work must be rearranged at all. The methodology section does not summarize the methodology. The sections 3 and 4 should be splitted into metodology and literature review. Figures should be regularly referred in the text and currently brings almost no added value.-doplniť odkazy k obrázkom

Authors response:

We thank you very much for your suggestions.

The literature review also for section 3 was processed in the subsection Related work, where we presented the outputs and comparisons of individual blockchain platforms, the theoretical use in the supply chain as well as the application of sensors with blockchain. In the methodology chapter, we have listed the actual procedures for developing the article, while we have listed the basic problems that arise in articles that describe a theoretical application in the supply chain, but practically there are barriers that prevent them from this implementation. In this section, we have dealt only with private and public platforms that have been cited. Therefore, we didn't want to put the Literature review subsection there again, which would have been a bit confusing.

The images themselves are of great importance in explaining and understanding what we present in the article, namely the difference in procedures for a traditional supply chain and a supply chain with blockchain. From our point of view, in this case it is better to have a graphical representation so that the benefits of the blockchain application in specific parts of the supply chain are clearly visible. Also due to the fact that the different parts described are also critical points of the cold storage supply chain and it is important to show the change in specific critical points. 

Updating the methodology text:

 

The approach comprises the subsequent steps. Initially, we examine both public and private networks regarding supply chains and small carriers. Next, we address the issue of varying control requirements for different types of supply chains. Finally, in the last phase, we provide an illustrative case study.

Comments part 2:

Discussion and most of text is to generalized and does not enter into details. Discussion is not a result of own  research discussed here. Complete data should be available to reviewers and not on special request from corresponding author. 

Authors response: We appreciate your opinion, but we respectfully disagree with the assertion that the debate is to general. Our paper specifically addresses the tangible challenges associated with implementing blockchain technology in the supply chain. If we fail to mention all these areas, reviewers may point out that we are not addressing all areas of discussion. Consequently, we included information regarding the effects on the small carrier. 

We make the completely processed data in enclosed zip  available for your subsequent verification.

 

In case the authors decide to improve the manuscript, here are some issues to be solved:
*page 2, line 55 – summarize references [8-12];
 *page 2 line 59 – reference failure Bao et al. [13]
*page3 line 223 –include the author name for [44]
*page 3 line 235 - include the author name for [48]. Algorand Blockchain web address should not be part of the main text, shift it into the references with proper citation.

Authors response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have changed it.
*page 4 line 175 - [33, 34]

Authors response: Currently, several devices collect data [33,34]. was reformulated to  Currently, several devices are enabled to collect various data with help of sensors.

*figures, tables citation is not concise or missing. Table/figure captions and titles should be improved as well.
*page4 lines157-163 – it is unclear the meaning of 7 TPS which is comparable to bitcoin.  TPS is predefined as Transaction  Processing Speed, but it is discussed in the context of Transaction Per Second. Please make it clear.

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have used the term reflecting the Transaction per Second which is also parameter describing the transaction.

 *please review the manuscript for type-writting mistakes, duplication, missed words, unclear or unconcise statement, etc.

Authors response: Thank you. We have revised the text.

 *page 6 lines 283-284 – public network is meaningfull … vs. Such a private network …  What kind of network are they discussing?

Authors response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have modified the sentences.

Thank you again for your time.

We hope we have met your requirements.

Yours sincerely,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors provided an overview of the application areas of blockchain technology in the supply chain.

They created a model in which a sensor for measuring temperature is installed in a small delivery vehicle.

The disadvantage is that the data is not sent to the database for users to see. Therefore, the authors propose a model that can be used by small carriers and in which data is sent to the blockchain.

The paper does not clearly indicate how it is intended to implement the standardization for measurement, devices and data transmission provided by the model.

They presented the applications that such a system should have, but there are no details about the applications. Add details.

They just gave an example of a transaction on Hadera, also without details.

Author Response

Response for the Reviewer 2

Dear reviewer, 

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. We very much appreciate the time you took to review the article. We have tried to improve the article , as much as possible, to reflect the requests you have made. We have updated the article to meet your requirements.

 

Comment 1:

The paper does not clearly indicate how it is intended to implement the standardisation for measurement, devices and data transmission provided by the model.

Authors response: Thank you for this remark. The main goal of the article was to point on the technological barriers. The standardisation should be stated by industry or supply chain consortium, therefore we are not focusing on the standardisation itself, but mostly on the recommendation to overcome this barrier. We have reformulated and extended the text.

 

Comment 2:

They presented the applications that such a system should have, but there are no details about the applications. Add details. 

Authors response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added additional information about application.

 

Comment 3:

They just gave an example of a transaction on Hadera, also without details.

Author response: Thank you for commenting on this. We have added more detailed text about the Hedera flow.

 

 

Thank you again for your time.

We hope we have met your requirements.

Yours sincerely,

The Authors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors 

The title is quite interesting because "Supply Chain & Blockchain" is a hot topic. However, the authors need to answer some major concerns. Please consider all the comments below:

1. The abstract looks more like an introduction that doesn't give much information. This section needs to be rewritten. 

2. Keywords: instead of barriers, you can add Technological barriers. You also have only four keywords; normally, we have at least five keywords. You may want to add temperature-sensitive cargo or something else to the list. 

3. Related work needs another section to give us a conclusion on the research gap, the importance of the current study, and the contribution of the work. In this form it looks like some not connected islands. 

4. Numbering of the sub-titles helps readers to follow the study more efficiently. 

5. The current study is mostly based on an example and not a real case. How do you justify your work? 

6. Discussion and further work proposes much more than what has already been done and presented in the study. You may not have solved many challenges, and you are putting all the rest for future studies! 

 

Author Response

Response for the Reviewer 3

Dear reviewer, 

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. We very much appreciate the time you took to review the article. We have tried to improve the article , as much as possible, to reflect the requests you have made. We have updated the article to meet your requirements.

 

Comment 1:

The title is quite interesting because "Supply Chain & Blockchain" is a hot topic. However, the authors need to answer some major concerns. Please consider all the comments below:

1. The abstract looks more like an introduction that doesn't give much information. This section needs to be rewritten. 

Authors response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have updated the abstract.

 

Comment 2:

2. Keywords: instead of barriers, you can add Technological barriers. You also have only four keywords; normally, we have at least five keywords. You may want to add temperature-sensitive cargo or something else to the list. 

 

Authors response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added and updated the keywords.

 

Comment 3:

3. Related work needs another section to give us a conclusion on the research gap, the importance of the current study, and the contribution of the work. In this form it looks like some not connected islands. 

Authors response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added and extended the research gap conclusion.

4. Numbering of the sub-titles helps readers to follow the study more efficiently. 

Authors response: We have renumbered sub-titles

5. The current study is mostly based on an example and not a real case. How do you justify your work? 

Author response: Thank you for this comment. The measuring was done during the real transport in real vehicle, but blockchain was shown in example, because, now there is no option to participate in blockchain supply in our condition (current supply chain). For us, this example is a way to show the real-world application of the new approach. That's why we call it a case study. In reality, there is no real blockchain ecosystem where a single carrier, whose vehicle we use as an example, could test and share the data. We had to create a new real-world example to justify our work. In addition, the carrier itself understood the principle of blockchain based on its own experience and capabilities.

 

Comment 6:

6. Discussion and further work proposes much more than what has already been done and presented in the study. You may not have solved many challenges, and you are putting all the rest for future studies!

Author response: Thank you for this remark. We have reduced the discussion and reformulated the text, based on your recommendation.

Thank you again for your time.

We hope we have met your requirements.

Yours sincerely,

The Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for your time to review the article.

Kind regards,

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors 

The article looks well after the revision. The quality of the figures is a concern. Its really hard to get what they illustrate. 

 

Best regards

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for your time to review the article.

Kind regards,

Authors