Enhancing 5G Antenna Manufacturing Efficiency and Reliability through Blockchain and Smart Contract Integration: A Comprehensive AHP Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Proof reading needs to be done after revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

An interesting read in a highly topical area of research. Overall the presentation of the paper is sound. My main concern is in the referencing style utilised in the majority of the Introduction and Review. A large range of references have been attributed to what appears to be two or three sentences e.g. range [1-11] in the Introduction. This raises concerns as it appears just to be used to inflate the reference list for this work. Please go back and ensure that the references cited are specific and relevant to that particular sentence or paragraph and not vaguely topically related to the concept under discussion.

Just be careful with the grammar and punctuation as there are places were words are joined together without the neccessary whitespace i.e. smartcontracts vs smart contracts.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article titled "Enhancing 5G Antenna Manufacturing Efficiency and Reliability through Blockchain and Smart Contract Integration: A Comprehensive AHP Analysis" presents an approach to improving the manufacturing processes of 5G antennas. This study introduces the Blockchain-based SER-M (B-SER-M) model, leveraging blockchain and smart contract technologies, underpinned by Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) analysis. The authors identify 'Subject', 'Environment', and 'Resource' as critical factors in the manufacturing process, with 'Subject' being the most influential according to their AHP analysis.

While the study aims to integrate cutting-edge technologies into 5G antenna manufacturing, several aspects of the research could benefit from refinement and further clarification:

1) The article extensively covers well-known information regarding 5G antenna production, blockchain technology, smart contracts, and the SER-M model. A more concise presentation of this background information, supplemented by relevant references, would allow for a clearer focus on the authors' novel contributions.

2) The authors' proposal of a blockchain-based business model is intriguing; however, the justification for this model and its comparison to existing models are not adequately addressed. A detailed rationale for the proposed model, alongside a comparative analysis with established models, would significantly strengthen the article.

3) The necessity of blockchain technology within the context of this study is questioned. Blockchain is renowned for its ability to provide a historically reliable repository for critically important information. The article, however, does not clearly articulate the specific benefits or requirements of blockchain technology for the task at hand.

4) The portion of the article dedicated to the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) analysis focuses on its application to a relatively simple decision-making task. The necessity of a separate publication for this application is debatable, given the simplicity of the task and the subjective nature of AHP results.

5) The article presents two main research components—the blockchain-based business model proposal and the results of the AHP analysis—which appear to be loosely connected. The relationship and integration between these components are not clearly defined, leading to a lack of cohesion within the paper.

In conclusion, while the article proposes an approach to enhancing 5G antenna manufacturing through advanced technologies, it falls short of the academic rigor expected in high-quality research publications. A focused effort on clarifying the novel contributions, providing a stronger rationale for the proposed model and technology use, and enhancing the cohesion between different parts of the study could elevate the paper to meet academic standards.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

In the revised version of the manuscript titled "Enhancing 5G Antenna Manufacturing Efficiency and Reliability through Blockchain and Smart Contract Integration: A Comprehensive AHP Analysis," the authors have made efforts to address previous concerns. However, certain critical aspects still warrant further refinement to substantiate the publication's contribution to the field of 5G antenna manufacturing.

Firstly, the justification for the incorporation of blockchain technology remains ambiguous. While blockchain is a trending topic across various sectors, its application should transcend beyond being a mere contemporary buzzword. The manuscript would benefit significantly from a detailed quantitative analysis demonstrating the tangible improvements blockchain technology brings to the manufacturing process. This analysis should ideally include efficiency gains, cost reductions, and enhancements in reliability and traceability, compared to traditional manufacturing processes. By providing empirical evidence or case studies, the authors could convincingly argue the necessity and benefits of blockchain technology in this context.

Secondly, the use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) as the sole decision-making tool raises concerns regarding the subjectivity inherent in the method. While AHP is a widely recognized method for decision-making, its subjective nature can lead to varying outcomes depending on the individual conducting the analysis. To strengthen their methodology, the authors are encouraged to compare AHP with alternative decision-making frameworks, such as loss functions or variance-based system performance metrics. Such a comparative analysis would not only validate the robustness of the AHP in this particular application but also provide a comprehensive view of how different methodologies might impact the decision-making process in 5G antenna manufacturing.

Lastly, the manuscript currently presents a dichotomy between the proposed blockchain technology application and the AHP analysis for alternative selection, with a discernible lack of integration between these two core components. For the research to have a coherent narrative and a stronger impact, it is imperative to elucidate the interconnection between the blockchain implementation and the decision-making process. How does the blockchain-based model influence the criteria or priorities within the AHP analysis? And conversely, how does the outcome of the AHP analysis inform or optimize the blockchain application? Addressing these questions will not only enhance the manuscript's internal consistency but also provide readers with a holistic understanding of the research's innovative approach.

In conclusion, while the revised manuscript shows improvement, focusing on quantitatively demonstrating the benefits of blockchain technology, comparing AHP with other decision-making methodologies, and integrating the study's two main components would significantly enhance its academic rigor and relevance. Such revisions would not only solidify the manuscript's contribution to the field but also align it with the high standards expected in top-tier computer science research publications.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx