Blockchain for Food Tracking
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper treats an actual subject and contribute to the general knowledge.
The paper has a good structure and the research findings are easy to understand.
The paper is presented in a comprehensive manner.
The paper contains 26 applicable references.
BUT:
1. YOU said: "In this study, the establishment of a blockchain-based food tracking system in Turkey, its operation in a pilot region, and its results will be discussed"
Do you USE your SYSTEM in a real case study? in a pilot region, with REAL collected data etc...
I see NO case study related your system... no results here!
You have some results related a questionnaire and the collected answers:
PREFER!! to use the application, if the app is useful... etc...
Do you TEST YOUR SYSTEM IN THE REAL WORLD?
You said:
"Since we did not have the chance to implement our application throughout the country at this stage, we took action to run the application unofficially in a pilot region and decided to implement it in a market."
What are the results? I see no such validation of your system.
2. Your system is based on an addition of a layer - blockchain...
see the following:
Figure 4. Conventional food tracking systems architecture
vs
Figure 5. The proposed blockchain based food tracking system architecture
What are the advantages of this proposal....? Is this blockchain layer mandatory?
I understand that it is your PROPOSAL, but:
What do this layer bring new? compared to the traditional system...
3. What are the limitations of your research?
No limitation is specified...
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is poorly written and requires full proof reading. Formatting is poor. Few of my feedback can be considered to improve the quality of the paper.
1. Please only add those paper that are from good journal or conferences. Review references because many of them are not standard.
2. You could improve writing, link better the ideas flow in the Introduction.
3. Introduction may be improved, adding the highlights and the problem statements.
4. You could discuss the relationship between your solution and past literature. You can cite few papers with applications of blockchain such as:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9356086
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8861593
5. Novelty of the paper is not clear.
6. Provide the experimental setup and the tools used for the study.
7. If possible provide a simulation parameters table.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The authors did not modify and did not answer the questions. e.g:
A. The limitations of the research are added between lines 225-234.
The lines 225-234:
recorded in the blockchain structure. QR codes can be used to automate these pro-225 cesses. 226
• Planting the crop: The producer records the number and type of seeds used during 227 planting in the
blockchain structure. With a smart contract to be used here, it can be 228 checked that no more seeds are
planted from the seed taken in the previous transac-229 tion. 230
• Cultivation: With the networked microcontrollers to be used here, information about 231
the growing place of the product, how much water or sun it receives can be added to 232 the blockchain. Again,
when there is an anomaly with smart contracts, it can be rec-233 orded. 234
It's something else...!!!
B. The gains obtained with the proposed layer are emphasized with the paragraph between lines 358-362.
The lines 358-362:
maturity; but between 5 and 10 years, it is seen that this field will reach the level of ma-358 turity (Figure
8) [22]. 359
360
Figure 8. Gartner Hypecycle for blockchain 361
Although the name “trough of disillusionment” stage evokes negativity, it is a point 362
It's something else...!!!
2. You just confirm that you do not use your app / your system in a real case study... in a pilot region, with REAL collected data etc... I see NO case study related your system... no results here! You have some results
related a questionnaire and the collected answers: preference to use the application, if the app is useful... etc...
You do not test YOUR SYSTEM IN THE REAL WORLD... no real results... I see no such validation of your system.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Your feedback is very valuable to me. Actually, I had evaluated the comments you gave point by point and created a new version and uploaded it. Could you be seeing the old version due to a system problem? I uploaded the final version of the document to the system again, if there is a systemic problem, I added it again as supplementary material with the name new_manuscript..
Bests.
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors updated the paper and no further update requires. But still, please improve the format of the paper.
Author Response
Thank you so much. Your comments have greatly contributed to the development of the study. thanks for everything.
Bests
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper treats an actual subject and contribute to the general knowledge.
The paper has a good structure and the research findings are easy to understand.
The paper is presented in a comprehensive manner.
The paper contains 26 applicable references.
The limitations of the research were added in the paper.
Some proposals:
1. The gains obtained with the proposed layer should be better emphasized in the paper.
2. Try to use your system in the real life and for a long period - not just 3 months as you said in the paper.
And by this you can (or not) validate your system/proposal.
I did not test the plagiarism of the paper. No plagiarism test was done!
The paper could be Accepted after minor revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
