All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
I am pleased to inform you that your paper has been accepted for publication in PeerJ Computer Science. Your manuscript has undergone rigorous peer review, and I am delighted to say that it has been met with high praise from our reviewers and editorial team. Your research makes a significant contribution to the field, and we believe it will be of great interest to our readership. On behalf of the editorial board, I extend our warmest congratulations to you.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vicente Alarcon-Aquino, a 'PeerJ Computer Science' Section Editor covering this Section #]
All comments are addressed properly.
All comments are addressed properly.
All comments are addressed properly.
Accepted in the present form.
When I reviewed the article, I saw that the authors made the corrections I requested. The work is suitable for printing in its current state.
When I reviewed the article, I saw that the authors made the corrections I requested. The work is suitable for printing in its current state.
When I reviewed the article, I saw that the authors made the corrections I requested. The work is suitable for printing in its current state.
When I reviewed the article, I saw that the authors made the corrections I requested. The work is suitable for printing in its current state.
Dear Dr. Alshahrani,
Reviewers find merit to your manuscript, however, they suggested a significant revision. You must address all the reviewers' comments and suggestions and submit a revision. The revised manuscript will be subjected to a 2nd round of review. Good luck.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
This manuscript introduces a token-based blockchain model for a reliable drug supply chain through IoT.
- The paper is easy to follow.
- Recent paper published in 2023 in not available in literaure survey. Though, few papers are discussed in sub-section 1.1
- Name of the components in the figure 1 and 2 (like blockchain, network layer IoT data transfer) should be more clear.
- There must be a separate sub-section as "Our Contributions" in Introduction section. Also, it should highlight 4-5 main contributions in terms of novelty.
- The remaining portion of the paper should be in the manuscript as the last paragraph in the Introduction section.
- Code snippets or screenshot should be placed in a GitHub repository along with the implementation code and revised section-4 accordingly.
- Compare your technique with recent state-of-the-art works/models.
- Show evaluation results
- Perform Ablation study.
- Discussed data used in this work in detail as a separate sub-section.
- Future directions of research as a separate sub-section.
- Experimental details or parameters should be placed in a table separately.
- Results should be highlighted in bold and placed in a table.
Major revision
The paper idea is valid and added knowledge to the literature. It is related to the journal scope. Overall, the paper is an accepted with major changes. The limitation of the paper lies in paper structures and its presentation as it has to be improved.
1. The introduction section isn't well structure. It has to be rewritten using the following paragraphs: general information, research problems, the gaps, the proposed approaches, the results, paper structure. 2. You have to briefly describe the proposed approach in Introduction Section.
3. It will be a good idea of the authors can add a new table at the end of the second section related works to summarize and compare the existing approaches. The table should include the following columns: reference no, published year, approach name, advantages and disadvantages.
4. The paper has to be proofread.
The paper idea is valid and added knowledge to the literature. It is related to the journal scope. However, the author has to improve the following:
1. Add an algorithm to explain his contribution methodology.
2. Update figure 11. It isn't an activity diagram while it is a sequence diagram.
The paper idea is valid and added knowledge to the literature.
please check below
please check below
please check below
The authors have highlighted a very good model for managing the supply chain of medicines across the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The model reflects technique related to management of organizing and tracking the complete system of drug manufacturing in the kingdom. There is a strong need for similar system for managing the supply chain of medicines not only in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia but across the world. The manuscript raised a great model by using block chain for the management of the supply chain. However, there are several updates that are required to make the proposed model more efficient:
1. The language of the manuscript should be improved and enhanced to of publication level.
2. The authors are advised to explain Ethereum block chain in the manuscript.
3. The use of IOT devices is done in the system, however, the authors must explain the technical specification of the IOT devices used.
4. The algorithm proposed for the identification of information in line number 525 is not defined correctly. The authors are required to update the format of the algorithm for better understanding.
5. A quick introduction to ERC 721 standard is also needed for the readers to acquire proper attention to words the proposed model.
6. The authors are also expected to use more recent references in their literature review.
7. The introductory session is well defined, however, it can be concise for better understanding. The authors can update the introduction to make it more effective.
8. The author must ensure that all the figures and the tables are numbered and cited in the reference properly.
In general terms, study offers a different perspective on IoT technology. However, my suggestions below should be evaluated throughout entire study;
1) Language of article should be a little more professional. English is insufficient.
2) Figure 1 looks very blurry, I don't know if this is related to loading, but it becomes meaningless for reader.
3) For experimental results, striking results should be made more evident with a table or figure. It is not clear exactly how article differs from other examples in literature in this form.
In addition to above comments, basis on which calculations and operations are made must be proven by giving formulas or references to formulas used.
.
.
Unfortunately keyword 'the' is used everywhere in the work, which affects integrity of paper and prevents it from being professional.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.