Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. some of the figures are not clear (ex: figure 2)

2. the proposed framework should be compared with other related previous work. however, related work is not demonstrated, it should be. moreover, the comparison should be conducted

3. the paper's aim is to design an election venue. the paper focused only on the size and people's capacity which is not an accepted scope. some important aspects are not discussed in the paper such as ventilation distribution. the current scope novelty is questionable.

4. the paper demonstrates the main election system starting from structuring the location and moving to conducting elections. however, the main challenges are not clear. for example, although the security subject is mentioned in the title, however, it is not clear how the security subject is accomplished.

5. although digitalization has been mentioned in the title, its contribution to the proposed architecture is not clear 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We express our gratitude for the time you've dedicated and the valuable comments you've shared. Please check the attached file.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript proposed the digital clone platform with agent-based simulation for “what-if” scenario testing of election. Although the manuscript is well-written with detail explanation about the proposed platform, the manuscript needs to consider the following comments.

In Line 2: Check the titel of the manuscript. There is a typo.

In Line 450: When authors demonstrate the proposed platform with a certain scenario, validation results should be illustrated with any statistical performance measure (R2 or MAPE). This will make readers believe the results. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We express our gratitude for the time you've dedicated and the valuable comments you've shared. Please check attached file. 

Best regards, 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The research is interesting. I think the authors could consider some improvements. The rationale was not well explained or supported (see 4). Does poor satisfaction result in lower voters? This really should be emphasized by the authors. Also, I would recommend editing the figures to improve the quality of the information. Many of the images could have been better presented (e.g., figures presenting the results are stretched and blurred (Figure 17.))

1. Please consider providing a brief overview of the ballot system used in the United States. Readers not familiar with this process will not be familiar with the terminology or how it affects elections.

2. Line 37 requires a reference to support this important statement.

3. It might be useful to explain why voter satisfaction is important during the election process. Would it discourage voters from voting in the next election or are there other issues that emerge from poor satisfaction?

4. Research studies should be used, which are available, to support the elevated perception of unsafe or uncomfortable conditions (line 53) and reduced satisfaction. These do not necessarily have to relate to this context but would help support these claims. A related example is the lack of indoor space and privacy which strongly determines overall dissatisfaction inside buildings (Kent et al. A data-driven analysis of occupant workspace dissatisfaction.) Also, perceived safety levels for older adults in public spaces increased, especially within indoor spaces (Liyang. The impact of COVID-19 on older adults’ perception of public spaces in Singapore.

5. I would recommend using new headers instead of incredibly long points to describe the three categories starting at line 56. The same could be applied to the 4 method processes explained in Section 2. They are too long to be clearly explained without separate sub-sections. Please consider enlarging Figure 3 to make the information more legible.

6. Figure 6. Are the red circles on the map to the right the locations of the polling stations? It would be helpful to indicate and perhaps use a gradient to indicate the density of the polling stations. Would it also be helpful to indicate how many polling stations there are per county seen on the map to the left? This makes it easier to understand why both maps are needed.

7. Figure 14 is unclear. The information is too detailed and too small to be visible, particularly the graphs to the right of the figure. I would recommend either removing this or displaying the results of these plots in another way. For example, using illustrations.

8. Please check the second conclusion regarding COVID-19 regulations. Checking the 2023 CDC recommendations, I was not able to find safe distancing measures being recommended. Are the same recommendations being implemented at the time the study was originally conducted?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We express our gratitude for the time you've dedicated and the valuable comments you've shared. Please check attached file. 

Best regards, 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

the authors addressed all comments

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1:

First of all, we would like to appreciate your effort and time regarding comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Blockchain-based smart tracking and tracing platform for drug supply chain”. We really appreciate your warm work and careful consideration of the manuscript, which are very valuable and helpful for improving our work. We have revised and highlighted the manuscript by green color accordingly, and the detailed corrections and responses are listed below point-by-point:

Once again thank you for your time and valuable feedback.

Sincerely,

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for considering my earlier comments. This was much appreciated. I have recommended some very minor changes, which I think can help improve this paper. This should not require large changes, if they are considered, or deemed necessary.

1. Figure 18. I would recommend removing the values inside the heatmap colors (they are not important or visible) and decreasing the width of the image. It looks horizontally stretched. I would consider doing this also for Figure 19.  

2. Thank you for clarifying the second conclusion. I understand the authors' response. However, this should be adjusted for accuracy. Otherwise, readers will not follow which guidelines to follow or how this relates to the current study. For example, "need to comply with ongoing and evolving Covid-19 regulation (e.g., 'which standard had been used'".)

Author Response

First of all, we would like to appreciate your effort and time regarding comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Blockchain-based smart tracking and tracing platform for drug supply chain”. We really appreciate your warm work and careful consideration of the manuscript, which are very valuable and helpful for improving our work. We have revised and highlighted the manuscript by green color accordingly, and the detailed corrections and responses are listed below point-by-point:

Once again thank you for your time and valuable feedback.

Sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf