Pricing Decision of Three-Level Agricultural Supply Chain Based on Blockchain Traceability and Altruistic Preference

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors!

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read and review the manuscript entitled „Pricing Decision of Three-level Agricultural Supply Chain Based on Blockchain Traceability and Altruistic Preference ". The manuscript addresses an important issue with the connection of supply chains and blockchain technologies. I find the aims of the manuscript important and well needed research of the usage and viability of blockchain.

Title: The title of the manuscript is well chosen.

Abstract: In my opinion, the abstract is a well written, condensed version of the whole manuscript. It contains relevant information on the research topic, analysis and results. The reader of the abstract can evaluate the authors’ conclusions and results.

Introduction and literature review: The introduction is adequate; the scientific gap and the motivation can be recognized. In the first 10 lines of the introduction, you refer to things that are not displayed. Please place these references (3 pieces in lines 3, 5 and 9 of the text). In page 2 line 57 there is an editing error. In my opinion Table 1. is very short for literature in this or near this field, are you sure there are no other significant literature in this subtopic?

In the end of the literature review and in the 2.1 chapter the list is described, however, the former does not have the abbreviations. Please unify and make it a listing.

Materials and methods: In my opinion, the methods are well developed, mathematically proven. But there is one major problem: most of the equations are part of the text, which makes it difficult and understand, also spoils the look and the segmentation. Please remove as many equations as possible from the text, only a few very simple ones should remain in it. The equations are well written and can be interpreted. I personally only have problem with two variable: Pi (please only use it for polar calculations) and E(Z)=Theta ( with E(X)=x and E(Y)=y, why couldn’t it be E(Z)=z).

Please add to the description of the Figures which equation(s) it shows.

There are several hypotheses, every one of them has been explained, proved and presented.

Conclusions: The conclusion is clear, the theorems are proved, and well written. The results are useable as a guide for agricultural supply chain members, to implement blockchain and other methods.

The language is remarkably good. I only find 2 language mistakes which I already written.  I marked them in the PDF.

The article is nicely formatted.

In my opinion, the article is acceptable with these minor problems fixed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The content of this manuscript seems appropriate for this journal. The scientific content and originality of this manuscript justify the importance of the manuscript. I agree with the presentation style, which is clear and concise. The title, abstract and objectives are satisfactory and attract the attention of readers due to importance of work. However, I urge the authors to improve the English language for better flow of literature and few corrections are required for reference section. The following major revision is recommended to further improve the quality of manuscript.

1.      Abstract needs some major improvements i.e. add a clear objective of the study and conclusion. Please add some major quantitative results in the abstract to improve the quality of abstract and for the ease of readers.

2.      In introduction section, improve quality of sentences by adding some terms such as meanwhile, moreover, however, furthermore and additionally. Moreover, the term ‘explored’ is used repeatedly. Kindly replace this term with some other words like observed, studied, analyzed, found, examined, probed, searched, and investigated. Improve this sentence, “In practice, agricultural products’ bacteria pollution has frequently appeared in recent years”. Add proper rationale of the study along with its importance and reasoning at the end of introduction.

3.      Add more theoretical details of problem descriptions and assumptions.

4.      Correct this sentence, “As vividly depicted in Fig 14, when the manufacturer bears the cost of deploying the blockchain, the retailer’s profit is still double that of the manufacturer, and the manufacturer's profit is higher than that of the supplier”.

5.      Mention the expanded form of this abbreviation, “COFCO”.

6.      Theoretically explain model construction and solution section by explaining the theorems.

7.      Add some recent studies in the whole manuscript.

8.      Add references in Table 2.

9.      Try to add a separate heading on Statistical analysis and mention all the statistics that have been applied for this study including designs and tests etc.

10.  Author should focus on proper comparison and justification with previous studies in discussion section.

11.  Please revise your conclusion as per your results and improve this part, mention some of your important results and focus on your main findings.

12.  Add recommendations in conclusion section.

13.  English grammar is so poor please thoroughly read the whole article and improve its language.

14.  Please recheck your references according to the journal format.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper seeks to understand the impacts of blockchain traceability on the quality and safety of agricultural products. It attempts to build a three-tier agricultural supply chain model comprising a retailer, a manufacturer and a supplier.

In addition, it seeks to explore the impact of retailers' altruistic consciousness on the pricing decisions and performance of supply chain members.

 

The paper introduces blockchain technology in the agricultural supply chain, as well as the situation in which the retailer has an altruistic preference. The following five scenarios are identified through this approach:

1. NN scenario (without considering blockchain traceability),

2. UN scenario (considering blockchain traceability without blockchain cost),

3. scenario NF (without blockchain cost and the retailer has altruistic preferences),

4. UU scenario (considering blockchain with a cost),

5. and NU scenario (with a cost of blockchain and the retailer has altruistic preferences).

 

The work is very interesting, both for the topic chosen and for the treatment given. However, I share with the authors some remarks/questions and recommendations that (I hope) contribute to the improvement of the paper.

1.         The introduction is very long and confusing. We recommend that it be revised, reducing it to the essentials.

2.         Consider a background section to help identify the conceptual part:

a.         Blockchain and blockchain in agricultural activities

b.         Costs of blockchain and how it increases the cost of the supply chain (as this is not necessarily true in all cases)

c.         Price and pricing in agricultural supply chains

d.         Altruism and Altruism in supply chains ....

3.         The concept of altruism in SC is not very defensible. Few works have used it. The concepts of "sharing" and "mutualisation" would be suggested.

 

4.         The article presents the price as if it is the choice of the CS actors. However, this may be the case in economies or regions of command (planned) economies. In liberal economies the price is the result of the confrontation of the preference functions of supply and demand. For this reason the authors are invited to specify the macroeconomic framework of their reasoning.

5.         The article presents the relationship between the three levels of the CS (retailer, manufacturer and supplier) in a linear and closed way. It is not true that the retailer has only one manufacturer and the manufacturer has only one supplier and the reverse is also true !!!!!!!!!!.

6.         The reasoning is carried out as if the CS actors are acting OUTSIDE the market and that competition does not exist at all. In fact, competition is the big absentee in the construction of the model.

7.         The notion of performance appears in some parts of the text but is neither presented nor justified. If this is the case, there is a problem because this link is not automatic and does not always have the same meaning. If this is not the case, additional treatment is required.

 

8.         The model is built up as the article is being written. The methodology and working tools were neither presented nor justified in the introduction. For this reason, a background paragraph and a method paragraph are strongly recommended.  

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

It can be accepted now 

 

Author Response

We thank you for devoting your valuable time for reviewing our manuscript. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Two remarks remain.

We underline them with the sole aim of improving the quality of the article.

1. The introduction is still too long. After the changes it is even longer (3.5 pages). 

We propose to move towards an introduction of about twenty lines and divide the rest between the context, the Background...

2. We are not against the answers to remarks 5 and 6 of the first version. However, it is necessary to integrate these answers at the level of the article.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have responded to most of the comments. 

I wish them all the best for the future