Leveraging Blockchain and Digital Twins for Low-Carbon, Circular Supply Chains: Evidence from the Moroccan Manufacturing Sector
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe introduction fails to clearly articulate the rationale for selecting these two specific technologies, which, despite being digital and linked to Industry 4.0, lack a clear, inherent connection that justifies their joint focus. The decision on the research scope must be better justified. Regarding the theoretical foundation, crucial articles on Digital Twin in Circular Supply Chains (CSC) and Blockchain in CSC were overlooked and should have been included in the discussion of the research gap. The authors must review the existing empirical research to explicitly reinforce the gap that supports the need for the mixed-methods approach (qualitative research followed by the quantitative survey).
Figure 1 exhibits misalignment in some boxes, detracting from visual clarity and professionalism. Concerning the search string used(“sustainable” AND “supply chain”) AND (“blockchain” OR “digital twin” OR “emerging technologies” OR “digital transformation”) AND (“implement” OR “adoption” OR “deployment” OR “transform”).There is a disconnect from the work's central objective, as the term "circular" is absent. Furthermore, the inclusion of broad terms like "emerging technologies" and "digital transformation" likely introduced excessive noise, pulling the search outside its scope. The string was poorly executed, and the authors must provide a detailed explanation of the intended rationale and construction.
In the coding process, although inter-coder reliability (kappa = 0.82) was cited, details regarding the number of researchers involved and the coding process itself were omitted. In Section 2.3, the moderate sample size is mentioned, yet the manuscript lacks a more explicit and robust discussion on sample size and statistical power. Running a G*Power analysis (e.g., considering five predictors in the structural model) is recommended to better substantiate the a priori sample size and the study's power.
The conceptual model, resulting from the systematic review, lists a series of theories. However, it is unclear how these theories were actually applied to underpin the discussion of the research questions and to structure the interviews. The research questions appear generic and loosely connected to the cited theories. The authors must demonstrate whether the theories were genuinely applied or merely illustrative.
The article's structure is disorganized relative to the methodological flow. It is not clear whether the hypotheses were generated from the literature review or the interviews. If they were generated from the interviews, the results of the qualitative phase should precede the statement and development of the hypotheses, consistent with the research flow.
In Table 1, the variable "Years of digital maturity" is mentioned, but the corresponding questions in the appendix do not reflect this temporal metric. The authors must better explain what is being measured and how digital maturity was operationalized. Restructuring the methods section is recommended to include, in the traditional manner, a part dedicated to the measurement model, indicating the literature sources or the validation process for the scales used.
The rationale for using PCA is unclear. PCA is a dimensionality reduction technique, not a measurement model for latent constructs, as it does not separate common variance from error variance. Given that the study uses PLS-SEM and all constructs are specified as reflective, the measurement model evaluation should be conducted within the PLS-SEM framework (factor loadings, composite reliability, AVE, and discriminant validity). The application of PCA is methodologically inadequate and redundant in this context. I suggest that the authors remove the PCA and focus on a detailed presentation of the PLS-SEM measurement model results. If they wish to justify the data's dimensionality beforehand, they should replace PCA with a Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
The manuscript addresses a current and interesting topic, though the justification for the technological scope (Blockchain and Digital Twin) could use greater clarity. Despite its potential, several methodological and structural issues necessitate significant changes, warranting a recommendation of major revision.
Author Response
Please see uploaded file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript presents a timely and well-structured investigation into the synergistic role of blockchain and digital twins in enabling circular, low-carbon supply chains within the Moroccan manufacturing sector. The mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative insights with PLS-SEM analysis, is methodologically sound and appropriately tailored to the research objectives. Here are some suggestions:
1. The study focuses exclusively on the Moroccan manufacturing sector, which provides rich contextual insights but also raises questions about the transferability of findings to other regions or industrial contexts. The authors should expand the discussion in Sections 5 and 6 to explicitly address the boundary conditions of their findings and suggest how future studies could test the model in different settings.
2. Policy and managerial implications could be more concrete. Although the paper mentions implications for policymakers and managers, the recommendations remain somewhat generic. Given the detailed empirical results, the authors have an opportunity to derive more specific, actionable guidance.
Author Response
Please see uploaded file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorssustainability-4043530
Below, I present a section-by-section review identifying observations, accompanied by improvement suggestions and brief examples.
Abstract: Good.
Introduction
The introduction includes too much theoretical content and lengthy reviews. It loses focus on the actual gap and the study’s contribution. I suggest emphasizing the unresolved problem in the literature and clearly indicating what the study adds. For example: “Although there are studies on blockchain or digital twins separately, few analyze their combined effects within circularity in emerging economies. This study addresses precisely that gap”.
Materials and Methods
The methodological description is detailed, but it does not justify why the samples (30 interviews and 125 surveys) are adequate for the conclusions. It also does not explain how external validity was ensured. I suggest explaining participant selection criteria and justifying that sectoral variability allows generalization within the Moroccan context. For example: “The sample covers the sectors that account for more than 70% of Moroccan manufacturing output, which allows representation of the country’s digital and circular patterns”.
Literature Review
The review is thorough but excessively long. It lacks a synthesis that connects the concepts to the proposed model. I suggest adding a closing statement for each subtopic that clearly shows what is known and what remains unresolved. An example of improvement would be: “In summary, the literature describes the individual benefits of blockchain and digital twins, but does not explain how they interact within circular supply chains. This gap justifies the proposed model”.
Results (Qualitative and Quantitative): Good.
Discussion
The discussion mixes theory, contextualization, and recommendations without a clear structure. It lacks an explanation of which result was most relevant, why, and how it compares with previous studies. In this context, I suggest emphasizing one central finding and linking it to recent literature. Therefore, I recommend Espina’s (2025) study, DOI: https://doi.org/10.64923/ceniiac.e0004. The justification for this recommendation is that the study analyzes how digitalization in Latin American contexts presents structural gaps similar to those in emerging economies. Its contribution helps reinforce the idea that, even when technological advances exist, infrastructure, governance, and institutional capacities determine whether real impact can be achieved. This aligns with the challenges described in Morocco. Here is an example of insertion into the Discussion:
“Our results are consistent with Espina (2025), who shows that digitalization in emerging economies is progressing, but its effects are limited by structural gaps in infrastructure and capabilities. In our case, blockchain and digital twins show high potential, but require stronger data governance and interorganizational coordination to achieve real environmental impact”.
Conclusions
This section presents too many ideas and recommendations; the central message loses strength.
I suggest emphasizing one theoretical contribution and one practical contribution in two brief paragraphs.
Limitations and Future Directions
The limitations mentioned are too general. The section lacks an explanation of how they affect the interpretation of the results. I suggest linking each limitation directly to methodological improvement. For example: “The sample, although diverse, is concentrated in highly regulated sectors. Future research should include sectors with lower digital maturity to compare adoption patterns”.
References: Good.
Note: The manuscript is solid and relevant, but it needs improved argumentative clarity, reduced unnecessary length, and a stronger connection between results and theory. The proposed improvements will enhance readability, theoretical contribution, and interpretive strength.
Author Response
Please see uploaded file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate the effort invested in revising the manuscript. I have confirmed that all comments and suggestions have been adequately and consistently addressed, resulting in improved argumentative clarity, stronger methodological justification, enhanced theoretical synthesis, and better coherence between the results, discussion, and conclusions. The revisions substantially strengthen the overall academic quality and contribution of the study.
Author Response
Many thanks for your positive review.
