A Peer-to-Peer Smart Food Delivery Platform Based on Smart Contract

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper solved a problem by introducing a peer-to-peer architecture based on blockchain smart contracts. However, there are many problems and drawbacks that affect the quality of this paper.

 

1. The novelty of this paper needs to be strengthened. The authors need to add more details in contribution bullet points that will clearly show readers the main contribution of this work.
2. Authors need to compare their method with similar ones proposed in recent three years.
3. The format of the references is not correct, and needs to be checked completely.
4. Authors only rely on simulations to evaluate their methods. I suggest the authors discuss the challenges and difficulties in applying their methods in real-life environments. In addition, authors also need to point out some potential solutions to tackle them.
5. The authors should discuss in more detail how the parameters are computed/selected and their dependence on an actual problem. The super-parameter settings for all tested algorithms need more discussions as regards how they affect the results and how sensitive are the results to these settings.

Author Response

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The manuscript needs to be rewritten in a precise format; many unnecessary details destroy the readability of the paper.  
2. What do the authors want to describe using Figure 6 is not clear?
3. In Section 3.1 what is a subsection?
4. Need to clarify most of the figures. For example, what do the authors want to mean by the blocks in Figure 10? In Figure 7, what is Node Ledger Storage? Need to review other Figures as well. Some of the images are of poor quality.

Author Response

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper presents a peer-to-peer Blockchain Food Delivery Platform Based on 2 Smart Contract and Recommendation Algorithm

Suggestion and Recommendation:

1. Initially, the title of this paper should be modified. Till now, it is not cleared.
2. Please check the list of authors before resubmission, such as Linchao Zhang 1, and Firstname Dohyeun Kim 1, * ??? the list is, okay??
3. In introduction, the scientific problem of the existed evaluation is missing. It should be elucidated clearly.
4. At the end of introduction, it is recommended to clearly state the research goal/objectives of this study and what the authors have done to address the identified research problem/section description. Remove extra description which is not relevant to your proposed system.
5. Contribution section should be modified.
6. The authors should be rechecking the grammatical errors and typos issues in the complete manuscript.
7. Please recheck section “3.1. Subsection”. Please correct carefully.
8. Please add conflict of interest statement at the end of the paper.
9. The presented diagram should be modified, try to define more. For example, explain sequences of data movement in Figures such as proposed architecture/framework/model results (Figure 1 in related work). Till now, it is hard to analyze.
10. I suggest you explore more open research issues in this domain and add at least 4-6 open areas that need experts’ consideration.
11. And so, Future works should be added in conclusion.
12. Reference format must be uniform. More latest research should be cited.

References: such as

Khan, Abdullah Ayub, Zaffar Ahmed Shaikh, Larisa Belinskaja, Laura Baitenova, Yulia Vlasova, Zhanneta Gerzelieva, Asif Ali Laghari, Abdul Ahad Abro, and Sergey Barykin. "A Blockchain and Metaheuristic-Enabled Distributed Architecture for Smart Agricultural Analysis and Ledger Preservation Solution: A Collaborative Approach." Applied Sciences 12, no. 3 (2022): 1487.

Khan, Abdullah Ayub, Zaffar Ahmed Shaikh, Laura Baitenova, Lyailya Mutaliyeva, Nikita Moiseev, Alexey Mikhaylov, Asif Ali Laghari, Sahar Ahmed Idris, and Hammam Alshazly. "QoS-Ledger: Smart Contracts and Metaheuristic for Secure Quality-of-Service and Cost-Efficient Scheduling of Medical-Data Processing." Electronics 10, no. 24 (2021): 3083.

Khan, Abdullah Ayub, Asif Ali Laghari, De-Sheng Liu, Aftab Ahmed Shaikh, Dan-An Ma, Chao-Yang Wang, and Asif Ali Wagan. "EPS-Ledger: Blockchain Hyperledger Sawtooth-Enabled Distributed Power Systems Chain of Operation and Control Node Privacy and Security." Electronics 10, no. 19 (2021): 2395.

13. In methodology, only a single P2P network channel presented to demonstrate the working transactions? authors should be clarifying the events of execution (one-by-one) for the whole process? Please elaborate.
14. The experiments should be expanded including more analysis and comparisons with other indexes/baselines and compare your proposed method with newly state-of-the-art methods.
15. The design of proposed architecture should be improved.
16. Results are scatters, mismatch. Please update result and discussion section.

Author Response

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

A well done scientific work, and by approaching the topic, the scientific tools and last but not least the concluded, precise and objective presentation proves once again that research is not an end in itself but it must to substantiate the development of socio-economic field.

To be added [33],  [34]  to the References:

1057- At the same time, the model is verified by RMSE 1057 (Root Mean Squard Error) [33] to evaluate the model error. We implemented the RMSE

1238 - This section evaluates the system performance of our case study. We use Hyperledger Caliper [34] an open-source blockchain benchmark tool designed to measure

Author Response

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have solved my concerns in the last-round review. Hence, I recommend to accept it.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you very much for your hard work. I do not have any further comments.