A Systematic Literature Review of Blockchain-Enabled Supply Chain Traceability Implementations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper named "A systematic literature review of blockchain-enabled supply chain traceability implementations" provides a systematic literature review of the various technical implementation aspects of blockchain-enabled SC traceability mechanisms. 

The article is clearly written, it contains 10 tables and 4 figures, of which there are 3 graphs and one diagram.
Everything is supplemented by 108 sources in References. The discussion is  understandable, it is based on sources and summarizes the premises that the authors aimed for.

I would only recommend to better formulate the chapter Introduction. I don't think the number (low - 8 references) and citations is chosen appropriately. I recommend expanding. I appreciate that the references are current.

The discussion is broad and extensive with key findings being formulated. I would be the authors here, so I would revise a bit and try to make the impact of ideas clearer and clearer. Given the above, I rate this article as beneficial and meeting the requirements for publication in the MDPI journal Sustainability. Nevertheless, I recommend editing and revising the introductory chapter and discussion. 

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

A systematic literature review of blockchain-enabled supply chain traceability implementations

Transparency and visibility in the supply chain (SC) have recently been established as effective techniques, especially in health-sensitive sectors like food and pharmaceuticals. There has been a lot of recent study on SC traceability and blockchain is perhaps the most promising technology for offering traceability services in SC networks. This research conducts a thorough literature review of blockchain-based SC traceability systems. the implementation maturity of these traceability mechanisms along with technical implementation details the sustainability perspective (economic, environmental, social) prevalent to these implementations. The autors summarize important concerns and limitations of current blockchain traceability solutions, as well as future research directions. They conclude that there are need for creating and testing real-life traceability systems, notably taking into account feasibility and cost-related SC factors.

The literature analysis is well performed with optimal scope of research studies and sources analysed.

This research study examines how blockchain-enabled supply networks improve traceability, as well as implementations of traceability. Because blockchain-enabled supply chains are becoming more popular among academics and researchers, I find that this research has great potential to contribute to base of knowledge.

There is a definite link between findings and results. The discussion brings debate that has progressed to a point where it appears logical and express research concludings.

I think that this article is the result of well organized and conducted scientific research, highly skilled and experienced authors  "Fit fabricando faber!"

My only doubt was regarding the type of the paper (this is review paper not the article).

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Review:

Introduction

This study is very important since blockchain-enabled supply chains are increasing in terms of implementations and research interest.

The study looks on the traceability implementations and how blockchain-enabled supply chains increase traceability.

However, the authors confuse transparency and visibility, traceability implementations, traceability solutions, and Traceability systems. these concepts are similar but not the same. In the title exists traceability implementations. In the abstract transparency and visibility. in the Introduction, they talk about Traceability systems. a revision is required to clarify what are the focus of this study.

Motivation and Contribution

In Table 1, which is useful, the authors may also include other differences e.g. number of papers reviewed, years covered, technologies etc.

Research Methodology

The authors used only 1 keyword traceability. Why not also transparency or similar words?

What years did they reviewed?

What databases?

Figure 1 can include actual output ie 72 papers

Content analysis

Table 3: Classification of blockchain-related traceability literature in the agri-food sector

Is this study only for the agri-food sector?

Future Internet, IEEE Access: the authors stated that they included only journals, but this table includes more than that; did they have a criterion on impact factor too?

Table 4: Comparison of the different features extracted from the generic supply chain literature: Methodology is the same; looks that it is not correct; the authors should report the dominant methodology

4. Classification of the retrieved literature

Table 5: Comparison of the different features extracted from the food supply chain literature: similar to table 4; there is no many insights from this table; I suggest to classify/categorise by product and/or sustainability dimension (social, environment etc)

It looks like an error:

Table 5: Comparison of the different features extracted from the food supply chain literature

Table 6: Comparison of the different features extracted from the agriculture/agri-food supply chain literature

are the same

5. Discussion

Discussion is well developed which is surprising since there is no clear connect to findings. I suggest authors to read similar reviews to see how they report especially findings. As such, although discussion seems legitimate it lack empirical support from the literature analysis. Further, not all are related directly to traceability. Take for example this paragraph

Evaluation and benchmarks: As observed in the literature, there is a lack of standardised benchmarks to compare different blockchain implementations, especially in light of different hardware, software setups and transaction types. Most studies provide experimental results of the performance and scalability of their solutions in terms of transactions per second and the approximate cost in terms of Gas fees. However, few papers provide a security analysis of their implementations, including the smart contract code. We believe that standardised cross-platform benchmarks are necessary so that authors discuss the real value of their works in practical scenarios and provide sound advancements in state of the art. Moreover, real case studies are also necessary to understand the suitability of the different blockchain technologies/platforms according to the application context while measuring long term performance, managerial aspects, privacy and security, and other measurable features. For instance, according to latency and cost fees, novel public platforms such as Solana, Polkadot, Cardano, as well as layer 2 solutions such as the Lightning Network 14, may fulfil the requirements for sustainable blockchain-based systems in short to mid-term, which nowadays are unfeasible with, e.g., Ethereum due to increased gas fees.

There is no reference to traceability.

…

Another point which is missing is a classification of actual projects reporting results with conceptual articles;  I also didn’t see any reporting of barriers and other factors that influence blockchain supply chains.

Recommendation

Major revision: the authors need to clarify the focus of this study (it seems it is traceability based on the keyword search), revise the introduction, the literature analysis, especially do more analysis based on recommendation and focus on its impact on traceability despite other results seem interesting.

 -----

Title:

A systematic literature review of blockchain-enabled supply

chain traceability implementations

Journal: Sustainability

Special Issue: Traceability as a Key Driver in the Next Generation Supply Chain Sustainability https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/special_issues/traceability_supply_chain

Abstract: In recent years, traceability systems have been developed as

effective tools for improving supply chain (SC) transparency and visibility,

especially in health and safety-sensitive sectors like food, pharmaceuticals,

etc. Blockchain-related SC traceability research has received significant

attention during the last years, and arguably blockchain is currently the

most promising technology for providing traceability-related services in SC

networks. This paper provides a systematic literature review of the various

technical implementation aspects of blockchain-enabled SC traceability

mechanisms. We apply different drivers for classifying the selected

literature, such as (a) the various domains of the available

blockchain-enabled SC traceability mechanisms and relevant methodologies

applied; (b) the implementation maturity of these traceability mechanisms

along with technical implementation details; (c) the sustainability

perspective (economic, environmental, social) prevalent to these

implementations. We provide key takeaways regarding the open issues and

challenges of current blockchain traceability implementations, along with

fruitful areas for future research. Despite the significant volume and

plethora of blockchain-enabled SC traceability mechanisms, academia has so

far focused on unstructured experimentation of blockchain-associated SC

traceability solutions and there is a clear need for developing and testing

real-life traceability solutions, especially taking into account feasibility

and cost-related SC aspects.

Keywords: supply chain; traceability; blockchain; sustainability

---

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting article. I took interest and pleasure to read this paper. This paper provides a systematic literature review of the various technical implementation aspects of blockchain-enabled SC traceability mechanisms.

Followings are my comments:

Significance:

• The scientific content of this paper is correct for me and deserves to be published.
• The hypotheses are correctly identified as such.
• The work innovation should be emphasized in the introduction section. The authors need to discuss more about supply chain traceability, to increase the quality of the work. For example: https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9081274

Scientific soundness:

• The subject addressed in this paper is relevant.
• The study has been correctly designed and is technically sound.

Overall evaluation:

• The English language quality of this paper is globally appropriate and acceptable. However, some minor revisions and spell check seem to be necessary.

As a conclusion, my suggestion to the editor is to accept this paper for publication after minor revision.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

the authors responded to my comments in authorresponse file but the manuscript was not significantly revised as advised; for example Table 1, discussion and so-on; some mistakes were corrected (traceability etc) but large parts remain problematic; I suggest a reject and resubmit to cover the specific issues with adequate time and care.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

My comments were not sufficiently addressed; I read the authors response but I am still having the same concerns