Blockchain-Based Architecture for a Sustainable Supply Chain in Cloud Architecture
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
I reviewed your paper and I found it interesting. However, minor to moderate revision is proposed. I outlined the comments and suggestions in a word document (see in attachment). Please try to address these comments.
Kind regards,
Reviewer
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors appreciate the review and comments of the editor and the anonymous reviewers. Attached, the summary of the taken actions based on the reviewer's comments is presented.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The review report
The manuscript title: Blockchain-based architecture for a sustainable production-distribution system in cloud architecture.
In this paper the authors introduce a blockchain-based architecture for a production-distribution system in cloud architecture. The obtained results predict that the proposed approach will lead to a significant improvement in the decentralized case compared to the centralized case. In the distributed model, the system cost is reduced by up to 45%, and the resolution time is reduced by about 51% in pessimistic conditions and by about 87% in optimistic conditions. In addition, the authors argue that the improvements resulting from the proposed approach will enhance economic and environmental sustainability, leading to a reduction in energy consumption.
I believe that the results obtained by the researchers are very important because they provide promising insights into the decision-making process that contributes to the development of production distribution processes. On the other hand, the authors have used an appropriate number of recent references relevant to the topic of their article. The manuscript is appropriately prepared, the conclusions presented are consistent with the evidence, and arguments presented, and address the main question raised.
Based on the above, I propose to accept the article for publication after taking into account the following minor revisions:
1- All keywords must start with a capital letter.
2- The accuracy of Figure 2 should be increased.
3- The unit of cost measurement should be mentioned in Figure 5.
4- The conclusion should be rewritten to be shorter.
The English language used is appropriate and clear, but needs minor revisions.
Author Response
The authors appreciate the review and comments of the editor and the anonymous reviewers. Attached, the summary of the taken actions based on the reviewer's comments is presented.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Title: When you have started the supply chain topic, why is it not included in the title? Blockchain in the supply chain is a very well-researched topic.
Introduction: Industry 4.0 and the supply chain are the main touchpoints. But the framework of the introduction has very loose ground for discussion. A clear research gap is missing. Why blockchain is required for sustainable production distribution is missing. The supply chain is only replaced by production distribution. What about sustainable? What readers will understand by the term sustainable production distribution is not defined or discussed.
Literature: No recent literature is discussed. Please discuss literature from 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020. If generalised theory exploration, then you can take old literature. How the authors planned for literature is not at all discussed. This section needs an architecture for the literature review.
Methodology: Proper methodology description is needed. Why are the methods discussed, and how do authors find this method helpful? A clear alignment between objectives and methodology is missing. The components of the theoretical model and how the researchers arrived at the mathematical model need to be explained more. It was sudden, and the authors tried to explore blockchain components more.
A mathematical model and its implementations need to be given. What can be the implications theoretically, industry-wise discussion, and socially sustainable applications are missing.
The discussion section is very loosely presented. I suggest authors try to present a holistic discussion for the section. The conclusion section needs to be reworked with limitations and future scope, which future readers can relate to and explore further.
Moderate English improvements are needed.
Author Response
The authors appreciate the review and comments of the editor and the anonymous reviewers. Attached, the summary of the taken actions based on the reviewer's comments is presented.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The article discusses the development of an architecture for a blockchain-based product distribution system using decentralized decision-making. The strength of this article is good structure and consistency. This allows you to quickly understand the work. Despite this, the work found errors in the design of references to the literature and some formulations that require additional explanations. This is described below.
In the first section of the article, the authors cite the relevance of the work, which consists in the application and development of new methods with the advent of Industry 4.0. The study examines the impact of the use of blockchain technology on the supply chain problem, the implementation of Industry 4.0 and improving the resilience of the supply chain. At the end of the section, the authors provide a brief structure of the article, which allows you to analyze the work step by step.
In the second section, the authors provide a literature review. The authors pay great attention to the history of blockchain technology. Here it is recommended that the authors do not stretch the story into two paragraphs, but only mention everything briefly in 2-3 sentences, provide links to fundamental works, because blockchain technology is well known, so it does not need a detailed description. Further, the authors smoothly move on to the problem of supply chain. The section concludes with a logical summary of the section, in which the authors bring even more narrowly to the field of study. It is to study the impact of the introduction of blockchain technology in Industry 4.0 and the impact of its interaction on improving the sustainability of the supply chain.
The third section begins with a description of blockchain technology. Here, too, I would like to note that there is no need to repeat what is already well known. It is more important to tell more about the application of blockchain technology in supply chains and point out the features that arise in the process, which the authors talk about below. The authors outline the main task, which is the analysis of the consensus mechanism (proof of optimality), in which the problem of optimization in decentralized environment. The authors propose a mathematical model that solves the supply chain problem. However, it is not clear what is the difference between this model and the existing ones? It is also not clear what limitations exist for a given mathematical model, because a mathematical model always assumes assumptions.
In the fourth chapter, the authors propose to solve the problem using a solver, which is based on the work of a genetic algorithm. The authors do not sufficiently justify the choice of such an approach, what advantages it has, and so on.
In the fifth section, the authors demonstrate the experiments and the results obtained. The calculations of the solution time are shown, the authors believe that decentralized solutions will be more optimal in comparison with centralized solutions. Further, the authors verify the results using the axiomatic design theory. The supply chain is analyzed on the basis of a design matrix. Here I would also like to receive an explanation of the chosen approach.
In the sixth section, the authors draw conclusions. The authors have developed and studied the architecture of the blockchain-based product distribution system. The authors believe that the distributed nature of the blockchain should increase the performance of the decision-making process in the product distribution system. However, no further prospects for the study are shown.
The entire text of the article is accompanied by the error "Error! Reference source not found", it is necessary to eliminate this.
Author Response
The authors appreciate the review and comments of the editor and the anonymous reviewers. Attached, the summary of the taken actions based on the reviewer's comments is presented.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
In my opinion the revision is well-done. I have no further comments.
Kind regards,
Reviewer
Author Response
The authors appreciate the kind comments of the esteemed reviewer. Statements for appreciation of the comments of the reviewers have been included in the paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
I want the discussion section must include more implications. Still, the implications section is not well presented. The conclusion section also needs reworking.
English has improved. But small minor improvements are needed.
Author Response
The authors appreciate the review and comments of the editor and the anonymous reviewers. Attached, the summary of the taken actions based on the reviewer’s comments is presented.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Good job.
Author Response
The authors appreciate the kind comments of the esteemed reviewer. Statements for appreciation of the comments of the reviewers have been included in the paper.
