Blockchain Technology Implementation in Supply Chain Management: A Literature Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper gives a literature review on blockchain technology implementation in supply chain management. Unfortunately, this article is a low-quality review. The main shortcomings are reflected in: firstly, there are obvious shortcomings in the induction and extraction of core literature, as well as the author's comments. Secondly, Table 1 and Table 2 are too long and have poor readability, only listing in terms of performance, reflecting the author's insufficient systematic understanding of the research questions. Thirdly, the academic standardization is poor.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English language quality is average.
Author Response
I did all comments and many other changes
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1.The background section does not clearly explain why SCM requires blockchain technology. It is suggested to supplement the disadvantages of traditional SCM that does not apply blockchain technology, and why blockchain technology can make up for these disadvantages.
2.This article lists the applications of blockchain technology in SCM in different fields, and suggests supplementing the commonalities and characteristics of blockchain in SCM in different fields.
3.The abstract's vague description of the challenges faced is basically just a mention, not detailed enough.
4.The logic of literature review needs to be strengthened and the overall idea needs to be clearer. The summary needs to be more detailed and too brief.
5.There are too many paragraphs in the conclusion section, reducing the number of paragraphs and enhancing logical coherence.
6.What exactly does the permissionless method refer to in line 124. Blockchain is not a technology that does not require licensing. For example, consortium chains need to verify the identity of nodes in order to allow them to access the blockchain network. Does blockchain specifically refer to non licensed chains such as public chains.
7.As a review, the references are not new or comprehensive enough.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required
Author Response
I did all comments and many other changes
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors“Blockchain Technology Implementation in Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Literature Review” sets out to provide a literature review addressing the benefits, limitations and challenges in incorporating blockchain into supply chain management. The paper provides a nice introduction with an overview of the history of blockchain. However, it has a couple significant issues that must be addressed.
First, as a review the paper covers a very limited amount of literature. The paper itself only cites 40 sources, including both academic and non-academic material. I can think of multiple important articles that are not addressed in the review. On this important topic, the amount of literature covered could be expected to be at least triple. This leads to the next major issues which is methodology.
It should be noted that this paper is not a systematic literature review, usually expected to adopt the PRISMA approach, but rather an ordinary review or literature. Even as an ordinary review, the methodology is insufficient. Readers should know the exact methods and inclusion criteria. However, the methods section only tells us that the “inclusion criteria included relevance to the topic, 210 publication date, and study design” without specifying the actual criteria. We are also not told the search terms but only that they included "Blockchain", 211 "supply chain management", "distributed ledger technology", and "smart contracts”. The content analysis process (lines 220-223) does provide useful guidance on that step of the process. However, the authors need to provide sufficient details that would allow other researchers to replicate the process.
The paper would also benefit from a more detailed discussion regarding the implications of the findings. It is a very important topic and I hope the authors will carefully (and substantially) revise their paper.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe paper needs to be carefully edited with the instructions from the template removed. For example, the results section on page 6 starts with the template instruction “This section may be divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise 255 description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental 256conclusions that can be drawn.
Author Response
I did all comments and many other changes
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Chapter 2 repeatedly elaborates on the screening criteria and results of literature(e.g. database, year, keywords, etc.), it is recommended to simplify the language to enhance the readability of the article.
2. The table in Chapter 3 does not include the articles for the year 2022 mentioned in Chapter 2's literature selection. Have the articles in this year been excluded after detailed screening. If not, it is suggested to supplement the articles in 2022.
3. Table 1 of Chapter 3 considers the innovative content of the paper to better highlight the strengths of each article, and considers adding 2023 articles to ensure that they reflect the latest developments in the field.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Some statements need to be adjusted moderately and the grammar should be checked.
Author Response
- Chapter 2 repeatedly elaborates on the screening criteria and results of literature(e.g. database, year, keywords, etc.), it is recommended to simplify the language to enhance the readability of the article. Done
- The table in Chapter 3 does not include the articles for the year 2022 mentioned in Chapter 2's literature selection. Have the articles in this year been excluded after detailed screening. If not, it is suggested to supplement the articles in 2022. Done
- Table 1 of Chapter 3 considers the innovative content of the paper to better highlight the strengths of each article, and considers adding 2023 articles to ensure that they reflect the latest developments in the field. Done
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors made some important improvements on this draft including sharing inclusion criteria and adding 7 additional citations. However, the changes only list some of the search terms as line 273 states “were some of the search phrases that were used.” The exact search terms and methodology must be detailed to the extent that other researchers could replicate it.
Similar to this, the article’s title and category still states that it is a systematic review. While it is a review, it would not constitute a systematic review due to its methodology and lack to details.
The language is substantially improved.
Author Response
The authors made some important improvements on this draft including sharing inclusion criteria and adding 7 additional citations. However, the changes only list some of the search terms as line 273 states “were some of the search phrases that were used.” The exact search terms and methodology must be detailed to the extent that other researchers could replicate it. Done
Similar to this, the article’s title and category still states that it is a systematic review. While it is a review, it would not constitute a systematic review due to its methodology and lack to details. Done
The language is substantially improved. Done
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
