Unlocking Blockchain’s Potential in Supply Chain Management: A Review of Challenges, Applications, and Emerging Solutions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for submitting your research work to our journal. This manuscript provides a review on blockchain’s potential in supply chain management. It is very meaningful. However, its quality still needs to be improved before publication.

1. The abstract can be improved. Firstly, the abstract should explain the challenges faced by blockchain when applied to the supply chain, rather than the challenges faced by the supply chain itself. Secondly, the authors should list the contributions and important findings of this manuscript in addressing this challenge item by item.
2. The introduction can be improved. Firstly, the introduction has a similar flaw as the abstract, focusing too much on the challenges faced by the supply chain and lacking attention to the challenges of using blockchain for the supply chain. Secondly, the authors should reorganize the contribution and important findings of this manuscript in addressing this challenge. And maintain consistency with the revised abstract. Additionally, the Roman numerals used in Chapter 1.3 are inconsistent with the Arabic numerals used in subsequent chapters.
3. Section 2 can be improved. This chapter is too long and has poor readability. It is recommended that the authors divide it into several sub chapters according to the content. Additionally, there is no need to list this review at the end of Table 1. It can be explained in the main text.
4. Section 3 can be improved. This chapter introduces too much knowledge about supply chain and lacks publishing value. It is recommended that the authors remove it or combine it with blockchain to elaborate. This journal does not publish previously published knowledge and is committed to publishing original and influential work.
5. Section 4 can be improved. It is suggested that authors pay more attention to the challenges of using blockchain in supply chains.
6. Section 5 can be improved. This chapter lacks reference citations.
7. Section 6 can be improved. This chapter should be combined with the previous chapters, with challenges first and solutions later.
8. Section 8 can be improved. This chapter should be explained in conjunction with the challenges of using blockchain for supply chain, and reference citations should be indicated.
9. Section 9 can be improved. The conclusion should summarize the challenges addressed in this manuscript, such as contributions, progress, and new discoveries. Then, acknowledge the flaws in this manuscript as the next step of research work.
10. The references can be improved. The current reference list is completely arranged in ascending chronological order, which is unreasonable. The authors should reorganize the references around the challenge. In addition, there is a lack of relevant research work in this journal, and many literature are poorly formatted and lack important information.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find below our detailed responses, along with the corresponding revisions and corrections, which are highlighted in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Through the revision process, we have worked to improve the overall structure and clarity of the manuscript. Additionally, we have attached a PDF file that addresses each of the comments in detail point by point.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is highly relevant, technically rigorous, and well-organized, addressing a critical and fast-evolving domain. It synthesizes state-of-the-art findings across diverse industry sectors and examines both the functional opportunities and technical barriers associated with blockchain adoption in SCM. The authors’ emphasis on integration with complementary technologies is particularly forward-looking and aligns well with current trends in digital transformation.

(1)While the content is rich, especially Sections 4 and 5 could benefit from more concise phrasing. There are instances of repetition and over-explaining, which may affect reader engagement. Careful copy-editing for grammar, syntax, and flow is recommended.

(2)Sectional summaries or key takeaways at the end of major sections (Sections 4–7) would enhance clarity and guide readers through complex arguments.

(3)Although the paper references multiple practical use cases, there is limited discussion of quantitative performance metrics observed in real-world or pilot blockchain implementations. Inclusion of performance comparisons, case statistics, or benchmarking results would significantly strengthen the paper’s practical relevance.

(4)The paper briefly mentions regulatory challenges but would benefit from a more systematic discussion of international standardization efforts and their implications for blockchain-SCM interoperability. An explicit section on policy considerations and regulatory readiness across jurisdictions would be valuable.

(5)The role of blockchain in supporting environmental sustainability is underdeveloped in the current version. Given global momentum toward sustainable supply chains, a dedicated subsection on blockchain’s applicability in sustainability reporting would substantially increase the paper’s policy relevance.

(6)While Figures 5 and 7 are conceptually informative, the inclusion of more architecture-level technical diagrams showing the data flow between blockchain, IoT devices, smart contracts, and SCM platforms would enrich the paper. A layered architecture could offer clearer technical insight for readers from engineering and information systems backgrounds.

(7)Although the literature comparison is thorough, the paper’s original scholarly contributions should be explicitly emphasized earlier. It would help to clarify whether the taxonomy was derived inductively from literature synthesis or designed deductively based on conceptual modeling.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find below our detailed responses, along with the corresponding revisions and corrections, which are highlighted in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Through the revision process, we have worked to improve the overall structure and clarity of the manuscript. Additionally, we have attached a PDF file that addresses each of the comments point by point.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is a review article on the challenges and solutions of blockchain in supply chain management (SCM). It systematically compares the existing "blockchain + supply chain" related reviews from 2021 to 2025, analyzes their research scope and shortcomings, and proposes the innovation point of this paper - a three-dimensional solution classification framework (transparency improvement, asset and compliance guarantee, efficiency improvement). The paper also introduces application cases of blockchain in procurement, production, logistics, resource management, information flow management and other links in multiple industries such as agriculture, medicine, food, manufacturing, and military, and analyzes the potential of blockchain integrating AI, IoT, and big data. Finally, the author summarizes the main challenges of blockchain in the supply chain, including technology, operation, regulation and privacy, and proposes targeted solutions and future research directions.

However, the following problems remain:

1. The comparison of related work is overly lengthy and lacks critical analysis. In Section 2, "Comparison of Related Surveys", the introduction of a large number of literatures mainly focuses on listing, with insufficient critical analysis of their methods, results, and limitations. Some comparisons only remain at the level of "broader coverage", without quantitative or qualitative difference analysis.
2. In row [105] of Table 4, there may be a problem of data misalignment, which leads to a mismatch in the content of technical usage and restrictions, and there are also some issues with the table layout format.
3. The challenges mentioned are relatively comprehensive, but the depth of analysis for some of them can be further enhanced. For instance, regarding the "energy consumption" challenge, it is only necessary to point out that the scalability and transaction speed of blockchain lead to energy issues. Specific data or cases can be added to illustrate the severity of the problem.
4. Section 8.3 points out the areas to be explored, but does not propose feasible paths. It needs to specifically explain how blockchain can solve industry pain points, lacking reasonable explanations.
5. Although the three-dimensional solution framework is organized, it does not provide clear evaluation indicators or verification methods. It is more of an empirical summary and needs to enhance the differences.
6. Some tables and charts have a low information density, and the large number of comparison items listed in the tables do not have obvious analytical conclusions or visual summaries.
7. The technical details are not in-depth enough. In Section 3.2, "Blockchain Technology Concepts", the introductions to blockchain architecture, consensus mechanisms, smart contracts, etc., are too textbook-like and lack technical correlation analysis with the supply chain scenarios.
8. When some professional terms first appear, more accessible explanations can be added to cater to readers from different professional backgrounds.
9. The charts and graphs in the text are helpful for understanding the content, but some charts and graphs can be added with more detailed annotations and explanations to enable readers to understand the information expressed by the charts and graphs more clearly.
10. The conclusion summarizes the key points of the article, but it can appropriately increase the outlook on the practical application prospects of the research results, emphasizing the potential impact of the research on the practical application in the field of supply chain management.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find below our detailed responses, along with the corresponding revisions and corrections, which are highlighted in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Through the revision process, we have worked to improve the overall structure and clarity of the manuscript. Additionally, we have attached a PDF file that addresses each of the reviewer’s comments in detail. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The development is created with relevance and an applied complex approach aimed at the challenges in supply chain management. The main drawback of the development is the lack of empirical testing and analytical approach, as well as numerical presentation of the main challenges. The authors lack a critical view when analyzing the literature. In this case, there are 105 sources that are minimally analyzed from a critical-analytical point of view. In addition to the critical points raised, which I consider extremely important and must be given a significant impact in order for the development to have substance, I have one question that the authors could pay attention to: Given the high costs of implementation and technical challenges such as scalability, the authors offer blockchain solutions for accessibility for small and medium-sized enterprises, which often work with limited resources, and at the same time are established parts of global supply chains.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find below our detailed responses, along with the corresponding revisions and corrections, which are highlighted in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Through the revision process, we have worked to improve the overall structure and clarity of the manuscript. Additionally, we have attached a PDF file that addresses each of the reviewer’s comments point by point.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for carefully revising the manuscript and responding to the review comments one by one. The quality of this manuscript has greatly improved compared to the original version. However, this manuscript still cannot be directly published in its current state. The following defects must be corrected before publication.

1. The first two sentences of the abstract are suggested to be removed.
2. Please rearrange all references to ensure that they are cited in ascending order in the manuscript. In the current manuscript, the first citation is [2], the second citation is [4], the third citation is [5], and the fourth citation is [3, 9, 24],... This is clearly unreasonable.
3. Is the number of articles in Figure 1 incorrect, with a maximum of 12 articles? It is best to provide a brief explanation of how many references there are in total.
4. The font size in Figure 8 is too small, resulting in poor readability.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your thoughtful feedback and constructive comments on our revised manuscript. We are pleased to hear that you found the quality of the work improved compared to the original version. We have carefully addressed each of the concerns raised and made the necessary corrections to strengthen the manuscript. Our detailed responses are provided below:

1. Abstract (First Two Sentences Removal):
   As suggested, we have removed the first two sentences of the abstract to improve clarity and conciseness.
2. Rearrangement of References:
   We have carefully checked and rearranged all references to ensure that they are cited in strict ascending order throughout the manuscript. The citation order has now been corrected to avoid any inconsistencies.
3. Figure 1 – Number of Articles:
   Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected the number of articles in Figure 1 and included a brief explanatory note (highlighted with red color) to clarify how many references were considered in total.
4. Figure 8 – Font Size Adjustment:
   We have revised Figure 8 by enlarging the font size (from 12pt to 16pt) to improve readability and ensure better presentation quality.

We are grateful for your valuable comments, which have helped us enhance the overall quality of the manuscript. We hope that the revised version now meets the requirements for publication.

 

Sincerely,

Mahafuja Khatun

Tasneem Darwish

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have solved the problems, it can be accepted.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We truly appreciate your time to review our manuscript.