Blockchain in the Energy Sector—Systematic Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The submitted work does not provide a complete overview of the current applications of blockchain technology in the energy sector. The work has been limited to open access articles whereas other resources can be found by widening the research and thus getting a wider and more accurate review.
Some statements are inaccurate and misleading:
"Closely and intricately linked to this is another point that is decarbonization. An effort to reduce the share of coal power plants can be observed" (Line 60-61): Decarbonization is more than just reducing the usage of coal. It actually covers or fossil fuel based power plants with an aim to reduce the emissions of GHG per unit of electricity generated
"Decentralization means that households or other facilities, such as supermarkets or other commercial buildings, will become at least partially self-sufficient, using renewable sources such as photovoltaic energy in particular" (Lines 57-59) : A decentralized energy system is characterized by locating of energy production facilities closer to the site of energy consumption. It is not only based on renewable energy resources, but can cover electric vehicles, demand side management, gas generators...etc.
The idea of how blockchain can help to achieve the 3Ds should be further elaborated.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your comments. Please see the revision in the attachment.
Key 3D terms have been explained in more detail and clarity in the Introduction chapter. Other pertinent sources were used. Will you look at lines 46-52, 62-68, 71-80, and 90-100 highlighted in yellow?
The idea of Blockchain and 3D.
Based on the outputs from the review the idea of Blockchain and 3D was elaborated in sub-chapter 3.3.
Will you look at lines 300- 338 highlighted in yellow?
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The Author tried to develop the systematic review article for block-chain in energy sector. The PRISMA based systematic review has been considered as main tool. The following points to be consider before further publication process.
a. The total count of article related for PRISMA type of review is not in the sound volumes.
b. If the complete flow of article is missing, due to minimum no. analysis parameter.
c. The indication of the Technical soundness is missing in the manuscript.(the key knowledge and outcomes hints are not up to the marks)
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your comments. Please see the revision in the attachment.
Based on your comments we have added limitations of the review and justification of the process. Will you look at lines 282-299 highlighted in yellow?
Based on the outputs from the review, the idea of Blockchain and 3D was elaborated in subsection 3.3.
Will you look at lines 300-338 highlighted in yellow?
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
An overview of literature on blockchain technology is presented in this paper focused on the use of blockchains in the energy sector. It has a good structure and is well written, but I don't think it presents any new findings in the energy sector.
- this paper doesn’t have novelty and it doesn’t present new insights to this field of research.
- This paper is based on a systematic literature review, but its review of literature is not satisfying.
- Honestly, this paper has not specific research findings, ideas, aim or models. So, it has not the quality for being published as a research paper.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your comments. Please see the revisions in the attachment.
Key 3D terms have been explained in more detail and clarity in the Introduction chapter. Other pertinent sources were used. Will you look at lines 46-52, 62-68, 71-80, and 90-100 highlighted in yellow?
We have added limitations of the review and justification of the process. Will you look at lines 282-299 highlighted in yellow?
Based on the outputs from the review, the idea of Blockchain and 3D was elaborated in subsection 3.3.
Will you look at lines 300-338 highlighted in yellow?
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
This version of the paper is better than previous version. As a result, I think it's good enough for publication.
