Enhancing Supply Chain Efficiency in India: A Sustainable Framework to Minimize Wastage Through Authentication and Contracts

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper proposed a platform design that fosters communication among stakeholders in supply chain to reduce waste. The approach is well illustrated with details. Some comments are as follows:

1. The proposed platform is sophisticated. At the same time, it is a common and general platform that has implementations in many different fields. It will be helpful to discuss more on the decision algorithm that is more specific to your problem domain.

2. Line 39, what's the reason to capitalize the first letter “Responsible Consumption and Production”?

3. Line 105, "Findings" is not an appropriate word here.

4. Line 179-184, lack of context for references 10-19

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attahced file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

“knowledge is power” . The initiative is commendable, it has the disruptive potential to improve supply chains, breaking the logic of large companies.

Experimental data showing the “before and after” efficiency gain would be very interesting.

The big threat to this type of initiative is state regulation, I hope the authors have the freedom to implement these ideas.

Author Response

Please see the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled "Enhancing Supply Chain Efficiency in India: A Sustainable Framework to Minimize Wastage through Authentication and Contracts" addresses a significant issue in India's supply chain: the high rate of food wastage. The proposed framework and platform, which integrate stakeholders through transparent communication and database optimization, are both timely and relevant. The innovative approach combining authentication and performance optimization using PostgreSQL, PgBouncer, and Firebase provides a solid technical foundation. While the manuscript is compelling, it requires several revisions to improve clarity, structure, and visual presentation.

 

1. Visualization Enhancements:

- Figure 4: The visualization in this figure is not adequately clear. Consider redesigning it for better interpretability. Use appropriate visual elements like flowcharts or network diagrams to highlight interconnections.

- Figure 2: The visualization contains elements that are not suitable for effectively conveying the intended information. Revise it to ensure alignment with the narrative. For example, focus on simplicity and coherence in the graphical representation.

 

2. Overly Detailed Subheadings (Section 4.1):

- Under 4.1 Facilitating Interconnections among Supply Chain Participants, avoid excessive use of subheadings. Consolidate the content into a cohesive discussion, supplemented by a well-structured table or figure summarizing key interconnections.

 

3. Presentation of Figures:

- Figure 6: Currently, this figure might benefit from being presented as a table to improve the clarity and precision of the information.

- Figure 7: This figure is missing or not visible. Ensure it is included and clearly labeled for review.

 

4. Equations:

- All equations in the manuscript should be numbered for easy reference. This will facilitate better engagement for readers and reviewers when discussing or analyzing specific equations.

 

5. Figure 11:

- The figure lacks sufficient explanation or interpretation in the accompanying text. Provide a detailed description of what this visualization represents and how it contributes to the study's findings.

 

6. Analytical Framework:

- The manuscript lacks a comprehensive overview of the analytical framework used for the study. Include a diagram or flowchart summarizing the entire process, from data collection and stakeholder profiling to platform testing and evaluation.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reject and Recommend for Resubmission:

The paper has been rejected but is recommended for resubmission. To improve the chances of acceptance, the following revisions are suggested:  

 

Clearly Identify the Research Gap:

Review the existing literature and highlight where current research falls short or leaves unanswered questions. Clearly state how your work fills this gap, emphasising its contribution to the field.  

 

Define the Novelty of Your Work:

In your introduction, clearly articulate what makes your research innovative. Be explicit about what sets your study apart from others, whether it's a new methodology, a unique dataset, or a novel application.  

 

Expand Section 3 (Methodology):

Provide a comprehensive and detailed explanation of your methodology. Include:

A full methodology flow of the whole work

Justification for choosing these methods.

How does the methodology help in answering your research questions?  

 

Enhance the Discussion Section:

Delve deeper into the implications of your findings. Discuss:

What do the results mean in the context of the existing body of knowledge?

How do they address the research gap you’ve identified?

The potential for future research is based on your results.

Any limitations of your study and how they can be addressed.  

 

Refine Overall Structure:

Ensure that your argument flows logically, from identifying the problem (research gap) to presenting the results and discussing their broader significance.    

 

Addressing these areas will likely strengthen your revised submission and meet the reviewers' expectations.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

N/A

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable and precise suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript. Please find the point by point responses below.

RESPONSE SHEET

REVIEWER – 01

Comment – 1:

Clearly Identify the Research Gap:

Review the existing literature and highlight where current research falls short or leaves unanswered questions. Clearly state how your work fills this gap, emphasising its contribution to the field.  

Response:
Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and insightful suggestions, which have greatly contributed to enhancing the quality of our manuscript. In response to your suggestion, we have included a comprehensive review of the existing literature, highlighting the current gap that our work addresses. (The existing literature on supply chain efficiency in India highlights the significant issue of food wastage, which is worsened by a fragmented supply chain lacking effective communication and collaboration among stakeholders. While previous studies have explored various aspects of supply chain management, they often overlook the integration of technology-driven solutions that enhance stakeholder engagement and contract management. This research addresses the gap by proposing a comprehensive platform that connects supply chain stakeholders through secure authentication and contract management, ultimately aiming to reduce inefficiencies and food wastage.)

The overall update can be found on Page 4, Lines 185-241 for your reference.

For more detailed review, we have incorporated a new table (Table 1. Summary of the research on supply chain, integration of technology status and its impact) on Page 5 that outlines the objectives, technologies used, practical implementation, and the impact from the literature.

In addition, as per your guidance, we have provided a detailed description of our proposed solution, which fills this gap and contributes to improving overall supply chain management. The relevant updates are located in the following sections:

• Page 1, Lines 19-28
• Page 2, Lines 94-99
• Page 3, Lines 125-129

 

Comment – 2:

Define the Novelty of Your Work:

In your introduction, clearly articulate what makes your research innovative. Be explicit about what sets your study apart from others, whether it's a new methodology, a unique dataset, or a novel application.  

Response:

Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to highlight the key aspects of our work. In response to your suggestions, we have emphasized our innovative approach and provided a brief overview of the unique application and methodology used in this research.

Indeed, our work presents several innovative elements:

Novel Application: The platform we developed serves as a contract-specific social network for supply chain stakeholders. This fosters collaboration and optimizes resource management, a concept that has not been extensively explored in prior literature.

Methodology: We leverage advanced technologies such as Twilio Phone Activity APIs for secure user verification, alongside Firebase and Supabase for data management. This modern tech stack differentiates our approach from traditional methods of user authentication and data handling, which are commonly used in existing research.

Unlike studies that discuss supply chain efficiency in a broad sense, our research introduces a tailored platform specifically designed for contract-based interactions among stakeholders. This platform is structured to facilitate transparent communication, enhance collaboration, and optimize resource allocation.

These updates have been included in the following sections for your reference:

• Page 2, Lines 74-79
• Page 3, Lines 110-116
• Page 6, Lines 244-249

Additionally, we have provided visual representations of our methodology in Figures 1, 2, and 3, which further clarify our approach.

 

Comment – 3:

Expand Section 3 (Methodology):

Provide a comprehensive and detailed explanation of your methodology. Include:

A full methodology flow of the whole work

Justification for choosing these methods.

How does the methodology help in answering your research questions?  

Response:

 

Methodology flow of the whole work:

We sincerely thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions, which have significantly enhanced the clarity and structure of our methodology. In response, we have refined the workflow, encompassing key stages such as user role identification, system design and implementation using Firebase and Supabase, and query performance evaluation across various user roles to address the complexities of supply chain operations. These updates aim to enhance efficiency, security, and user engagement.

To further illustrate the modularity and scalability of the system, a new architectural framework has been incorporated on Page 8 (Figure 2), showcasing how authentication and contract management features are seamlessly integrated into the platform. Additionally, we have depicted the Social Network and Market Analysis Module for Supply Chain Management in Figure 3.

Detailed information has been added to the following sections:

• Page 7, Lines 255–305
• Page 8, Lines 316–359
• Page 9, Lines 388–437

 

Justification for choosing these methods:

Regarding the methodological choices, we have emphasized the selection of Twilio for its robust authentication features, ensuring secure and reliable user access. This is critical for maintaining trust within the platform. Similarly, Firebase and Supabase were chosen for their scalability, ease of integration, and ability to support real-time data operations—essential features for managing a dynamic supply chain.

Incorporating your feedback, the methodology has been structured to enable seamless interactions among stakeholders, facilitate efficient contract management, and establish a framework for evaluating system performance through query analysis.

Methodology to address our research objectives:

The primary goal of this research is to enhance supply chain efficiency in India. The objectives include:

• Minimizing material waste by providing actionable suggestions to supply chain members.
• Assisting members through a dashboard that shares best practices for effective supply management.
• Predicting the likelihood of raw materials going to waste, enabling proactive measures.

 

By promoting efficient resource allocation, timely deliveries, and cost reductions, this framework optimizes supply chain processes and improves operational efficiency. It integrates social network and market analysis, which brings notable advantages such as enhanced collaboration by identifying key stakeholders and fostering effective communication and coordination.

 

Comment – 4:

Enhance the Discussion Section:

Delve deeper into the implications of your findings. Discuss:

What do the results mean in the context of the existing body of knowledge?

How do they address the research gap you’ve identified?

The potential for future research is based on your results.

Any limitations of your study and how they can be addressed.  

 

Response:

 

What do the results mean in the context of the existing body of knowledge?

The results validate the efficacy of our platform in enhancing supply chain efficiency by leveraging advanced technologies like AI and secure authentication. They build on the existing body of knowledge by addressing specific gaps, such as the lack of contract-specific social networks and comprehensive waste reduction measures.

 

How do they address the research gap you’ve identified?

Our platform uniquely integrates advanced authentication, contract management, and real-time data analysis to tackle inefficiencies and reduce food wastage, a gap unaddressed in previous studies. It bridges the disconnect among stakeholders by promoting collaboration and resource optimization.

 

The potential for future research is based on your results.

We enhanced the manuscript by providing the platform’s future direction.  We will include advanced inventory management with AI-driven shelf-life optimization to reduce product wastage, supporting SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production. Kindly refer the update incorporated on Page 25, Lines 924-932

 

Any limitations of your study and how they can be addressed.

Yes, there are some limitations including reliance on specific technologies (e.g., Firebase, Supabase) and the need for broader adoption to generalize results. These can be addressed by testing alternative frameworks, enhancing cross-platform compatibility, and conducting large-scale deployment studies to validate the findings further.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comment – 5:

Refine Overall Structure:

Ensure that your argument flows logically, from identifying the problem (research gap) to presenting the results and discussing their broader significance.    

Addressing these areas will likely strengthen your revised submission and meet the reviewers' expectations.

Response:

We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback on the overall structure of our manuscript. Your insights have been instrumental in improving the quality and clarity of our work.

In response, we have restructured the paper significantly from its previous version to ensure greater coherence and connectivity between sections. The methodology section has been further enhanced to include a two-way communication framework, an improved workflow overview, and detailed social integration mechanisms. Please see Page 6, Lines 244-248, 256-258 and Page 7, Lines 259-305

In the implementation section, we have elaborated on user authentication processes and detailed key user interactions, providing a clearer understanding of the application's interfaces. Additionally, the PostExtraction class in Supabase has been thoroughly discussed to highlight its role in data management. Please see Page 16, Lines 668-695.

To strengthen the manuscript, we have added an evaluation section and we introduced a comprehensive analysis of Supabase's query performance, focusing on critical factors affecting system efficiency. This addition offers deeper insights into the system's operational effectiveness. Kindly see on Page 20, Lines 812-841.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please, to improve the quality of the manuscript, the following questions and recommendations must be answered carefully:

1.The paper claims to offer an innovative platform for improving supply chain efficiency, but much of the described functionality—such as authentication via Twilio Phone APIs and contract management—relies on existing and widely-used technologies. There is no real breakthrough or novel conceptual framework introduced that significantly distinguishes this platform from current solutions available in the market.

2.The literature review does not sufficiently explore cutting-edge research in supply chain management, particularly in relation to AI and emerging technologies. While it mentions some relevant works, the discussion lacks depth and does not engage critically with how the proposed platform builds on or diverges from prior studies.

3.The paper touches on critical challenges, such as the fragmentation of the supply chain and communication gaps, but does not provide a thorough analysis of the underlying causes. It fails to investigate deeper systemic issues such as policy barriers, market inefficiencies, and technological limitations that contribute to supply chain inefficiencies in India.

4.The proposed solution is heavily technology-driven but does not consider the socioeconomic realities of supply chain participants in India. There is no discussion on whether small-scale farmers or traders, who often lack access to advanced technologies, can adopt this platform. Moreover, the paper does not address how the platform adapts to local contexts like poor internet connectivity in rural areas.

5.The methodology section lacks robustness, as it does not provide sufficient details about how the platform was tested. For instance, it mentions that Supabase was initially tested with only four users, and Firebase with fourteen, which is an insufficient sample size for evaluating the effectiveness of a platform meant to scale across a large and diverse supply chain network.

6.While the paper mentions performance metrics like query times and latency, it lacks a comprehensive quantitative evaluation of the platform’s real-world impact on reducing supply chain inefficiencies and wastage. There is no clear indication of how much food wastage could be reduced or how much efficiency could be improved in measurable terms.

7.The paper spends significant time discussing the technical aspects of authentication and contract management but overlooks other critical elements of supply chain optimization, such as inventory management, logistics planning, and real-time data analysis. These are essential to supply chain efficiency, yet they receive insufficient attention.

8.The conclusion reiterates the platform's benefits but does not offer clear next steps for implementation, nor does it critically evaluate potential obstacles or risks. There is no discussion of future research or practical considerations for scaling the platform beyond the initial testing phase.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable and precise suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript. Please find the point by point responses below.

RESPONSE SHEET

REVIEWER – 02

Comment – 1:

Please, to improve the quality of the manuscript, the following questions and recommendations must be answered carefully:

1. The paper claims to offer an innovative platform for improving supply chain efficiency, but much of the described functionality—such as authentication via Twilio Phone APIs and contract management—relies on existing and widely-used technologies. There is no real breakthrough or novel conceptual framework introduced that significantly distinguishes this platform from current solutions available in the market.

 

Response:

Thank you for pointing this out. We humbly wanted to convey that, while our proposed platform employs existing technologies like Twilio for authentication and Firebase for data management, the novelty lies in how these tools are integrated into a unified solution tailored for supply chain stakeholders. Specifically:

Unlike existing platforms, ours creates a dedicated network for supply chain participants to manage contracts, progress, and portfolios, fostering collaboration and transparency. As per your inputs and suggestion, we have added a figure with a detailed explanation. Kindly see Figure 3 (Social network and market analysis module for supply chain management). Page 10, Lines 398-433.

Your inputs help us to improve the manuscript to explain the novel conceptual framework to address the identified research gaps. To enhance clarity and understanding, we included Figure 2, (Page 8, Lines 316-359) which illustrates the user interface design of the platform, highlighting the integration of authentication and contract management features. Additionally, we have provided a detailed explanation of its approaches to demonstrate how these features align with the overall objectives of the study. For your reference, kindly visit Pages 8 and 9, Lines 316-359.

While the components themselves are not novel, the platform’s architecture and its application to address specific challenges in the Indian supply chain ecosystem represent a unique contribution to the field.

 

Comment – 2:

2. The literature review does not sufficiently explore cutting-edge research in supply chain management, particularly in relation to AI and emerging technologies. While it mentions some relevant works, the discussion lacks depth and does not engage critically with how the proposed platform builds on or diverges from prior studies.

Response:

Thank you for your valuable feedback. As per your inputs, we have revised the literature review to include a deeper exploration of recent advancements in supply chain management, particularly focusing on AI applications and emerging technologies. The updated section now critically analyses how our platform builds upon prior studies and identifies the gaps it addresses. We have updated a new table (Summary of the research on supply chain, integration of technology status and its impact) with related literature in the current work.

(Kindly see, Table 1, Page 5, Lines 205-242)

Specifically: (For your reference, we provided the below highlights)

We discuss recent work on AI-driven optimization, predictive analytics, and blockchain for transparency and how our platform incorporates these advancements into practical solutions. Our platform emphasizes a contract-specific social network and integrates AI-based shelf-life management, addressing gaps in stakeholder collaboration and waste reduction, which are underrepresented in existing research.

In addition, as per your guidance, we have provided a detailed description of our proposed solution, which fills this gap and contributes to improving overall supply chain management. The relevant updates are located in the following sections:

• Page 1, Lines 19-28
• Page 2, Lines 94-99
• Page 3, Lines 125-129
• Page 2, Lines 61- 67
• Page 4, Lines 185-241

 

Comment – 3:

3. The paper touches on critical challenges, such as the fragmentation of the supply chain and communication gaps, but does not provide a thorough analysis of the underlying causes. It fails to investigate deeper systemic issues such as policy barriers, market inefficiencies, and technological limitations that contribute to supply chain inefficiencies in India.

Response:

Thank you for your vision in identifying the actual underlying causes. As per your suggestion, we have added an in-depth analysis of systemic challenges contributing to supply chain inefficiencies in India. The revised manuscript now includes discussions on:

Analysing how regulatory inconsistencies and lack of policy standardization affect logistics and operations was mentioned in the report provided by NITI Aayog, Govt of India. These details are incorporated on Page 02, Lines 53-59.

Exploring issues like price volatility, lack of transparency in transactions, and limited access to market data, hence to enable transparency in the communications between stake holders, their contracts and lane works equipped in the proposed single application.  With your suggestions we have update the abstract (Page 01, Lines 22-26). Further information provided at Page 05, Lines 218-222. Also, a figure was newly updated in the current version at Page 08, Figure 2 (The user interface design of the platform, showcasing how authentication and contract management features are integrated). We got a chance to explain the platform benefits by providing detailed information about each stakeholder. Please refer to Page 09, Lines 360-387.

 

Comment – 4:

4. The proposed solution is heavily technology-driven but does not consider the socioeconomic realities of supply chain participants in India. There is no discussion on whether small-scale farmers or traders, who often lack access to advanced technologies, can adopt this platform. Moreover, the paper does not address how the platform adapts to local contexts like poor internet connectivity in rural areas.

Response:

Thank you for your insightful suggestion regarding the challenges of poor connectivity in rural areas. We appreciate your vision and agree that we can address this issue by implementing local data caching. This would allow users to create and save contract drafts offline, which would then sync automatically once a stable internet connection is available. Additionally, we will implement background syncing to handle contract updates and new entries as soon as connectivity improves.

To optimize data usage, we plan to offer a basic mode with limited media elements, enabling users to perform essential tasks without consuming excessive data/bandwidth. Offline notifications will also be introduced, informing users when actions, such as contract updates, will be completed later due to poor connectivity. Your suggestions were included in the manuscript (Page 25, Lines 931-933).  At present, given the focus on contracts and authentication features, we will definitely treat this as a future enhancement to the application.

 

Comment – 5:

5. The methodology section lacks robustness, as it does not provide sufficient details about how the platform was tested. For instance, it mentions that Supabase was initially tested with only four users, and Firebase with fourteen, which is an insufficient sample size for evaluating the effectiveness of a platform meant to scale across a large and diverse supply chain network.

Response:

We sincerely thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. Based on your suggestion, we have refined the methodology section to provide more details. We acknowledge that the initial user sample sizes for Supabase (four users) and Firebase (fourteen users) were small for assessing the platform's scalability across a larger supply chain network.

As per your valuable point about robustness and testing, we have significantly improved the methodology section to provide detailed information on the testing process and enhance clarity. We have introduced robust mechanisms in our platform, including Twilio, Firebase, and Supabase, which collectively strengthen the system's reliability, scalability, and performance.

Improvements in Robustness

We have ensured the platform's robustness through:

1. Strong Authentication: Twilio Phone Activity APIs provide secure and reliable user verification, laying the foundation for trust and seamless onboarding.
2. Scalable Data Management: Firebase and Supabase were integrated to handle real-time data operations effectively.

Testing Details

To provide more transparency, we have expanded on the testing phase:

1. Initial Testing with Supabase: The platform was initially tested with four users using Supabase. This test evaluated the feasibility of real-time query operations; however, Supabase's performance was limited for complex queries.
2. Transition to Firebase: Based on the initial findings, we shifted to Firebase, which offered better performance for managing contract creation and connections. The second round of testing involved 14 users, focusing on critical functionalities such as contract drafting, authentication, and connection management.

Added Framework Details

To highlight the modularity and scalability of the platform, we have incorporated Figure 2 (Page 8), which showcases the integration of authentication and contract management features. Additionally, Figure 3 depicts the Social Network and Market Analysis Module for Supply Chain Management, adding depth to the framework's explanation.

The revised methodology and testing details have been elaborated on in the following sections:

• Page 7, Lines 255–305
• Page 8, Lines 316–359
• Page 9, Lines 388–437

These updates address previous gaps in testing and demonstrate the robustness of our proposed platform in a clear and comprehensive manner.

This application is to be tested in a real-time environment. Initially, we used Supabase as the backend for testing with four users, but due to the complexity of querying, we shifted to Firebase to improve performance. For the testing phase, we involved a small group of 14 users to assess whether contracts were being created correctly and how connections and contracts were functioning within the platform. This preliminary testing helped us validate key functionalities, but further testing with a larger user base will be needed to fully evaluate the platform’s performance and scalability across diverse supply chain environments.

 

Comment – 6:

6. While the paper mentions performance metrics like query times and latency, it lacks a comprehensive quantitative evaluation of the platform’s real-world impact on reducing supply chain inefficiencies and wastage. There is no clear indication of how much food wastage could be reduced or how much efficiency could be improved in measurable terms.

Response:

We appreciate your observation regarding the lack of a comprehensive quantitative evaluation of the platform’s real-world impact. We truly agree, the need for more measurable outcomes related to supply chain inefficiencies and wastage reduction is required. Due to the limited scale of initial testing, real-world impact metrics are currently unavailable.

Currently, we have achieved efficiency gains in resource allocation and timely deliveries by enabling transparent contract creation and lane work management. Also, enabling Inbuilt geolocation services in application, helps to timely locating the farmers, distributors and other stakeholders in supply chain. Kindly refer to the updates on Page 11, Lines 782–791. Additionally, the manuscript has been updated to include application contracts, profiles, and lane work details, illustrated in Figure 4 (Application framework user interface design and functionalities) on Page 11.

Thank you for highlighting this crucial aspect. In response, we have incorporated plans for future evaluations using simulation-based case studies and pilot projects with industry partners. These evaluations will provide measurable data, such as the percentage of food wastage reduced through AI-driven shelf-life tracking and inventory optimization, as well as cost savings achieved through streamlined communication and efficient contract management. These initiatives aim to substantiate the platform's impact on mitigating supply chain inefficiencies and wastage, offering concrete metrics to support its effectiveness.

 

Comment – 7:

7. The paper spends significant time discussing the technical aspects of authentication and contract management but overlooks other critical elements of supply chain optimization, such as inventory management, logistics planning, and real-time data analysis. These are essential to supply chain efficiency, yet they receive insufficient attention.

Response:

We sincerely appreciate your feedback regarding the emphasis on technical aspects in the earlier draft. Taking your suggestion into account, we have refined the manuscript by reducing overly technical details and aligning the focus with the manuscript's broader objectives.

In the revised version, we have provided a more holistic explanation of the application’s design and implementation. This includes a clear discussion of critical elements in supply chain optimization, such as lane work allocation, contract tracking, logistics planning, and real-time data analysis. These updates aim to balance the technical aspects with the practical utility of the platform in addressing supply chain inefficiencies.

We kindly invite you to review the updated explanation provided on Page 11, Lines 435–478, where the revisions have been incorporated to enhance clarity and relevance. Your thoughtful input has been instrumental in improving the manuscript, and we truly appreciate your guidance.

Comment – 8:

8. The conclusion reiterates the platform's benefits but does not offer clear next steps for implementation, nor does it critically evaluate potential obstacles or risks. There is no discussion of future research or practical considerations for scaling the platform beyond the initial testing phase.

Response:

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have revised the conclusion to include clear next steps for implementation, such as conducting pilot projects and simulation-based case studies to assess scalability and real-world impact.

Potential challenges, like data security and resistance to adoption, are now addressed with strategies for mitigation. Future directions emphasize integrating AI-driven inventory management, sustainable practices, and features like offline notifications to cater to rural users. These efforts align with SDGs 9, 12, and 13, ensuring the platform contributes to innovation, sustainability, and climate action while creating a robust and inclusive supply chain ecosystem.

Kindly refer to the updated conclusion with your inputs: Page 25, Lines 916-932.

Thank you once again for your constructive comments, which have greatly contributed to refining our manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf