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.
In the opinions of reviewers and mine, this revised paper is able to accept after two rounds of revision.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vicente Alarcon-Aquino, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have updated the blurry images in the previous version, so the manuscript seems fine to me.
The authors have added a comparison between AdaBoost and other models, such as SVM, KNN, and MLP, to explain their choice of AdaBoost.
The author has explained the reason for choosing BSC over Hyperledger Fabric although table 4 once again confirms that Hyperledger Fabric is more optimal in both speed and cost. However, this is not too important for the contribution of the paper and may also be due to the complexity of Hyperledger Fabric.
In the opinions of reviewers and mine, this revised paper should undertake a minor revision to address a few minor issues, and then it can be accepted.
The authors have updated the blurry images in the previous version, so the manuscript seems fine to me.
The authors have added a comparison between AdaBoost and other models, such as SVM, KNN, and MLP, to explain their choice of AdaBoost.
The author has explained the reason for choosing BSC over Hyperledger Fabric although table 4 once again confirms that Hyperledger Fabric is more optimal in both speed and cost. However, this is not too important for the contribution of the paper and may also be due to the complexity of Hyperledger Fabric.
-
-
-
The authors have addressed all my previous comments thoroughly. The revised manuscript improves clarity, strengthens the methodology, justifies the choice of blockchain platform, and adds necessary comparisons.
The subject of the article is very valuable and necessary in the field of health and hygiene. The use of reliable and strong sources between 2021 and 2025 has added to the richness of the work. It also has a strong methodology and effective use of comparative tools, which are clearly visible in this article. However, there are some points that the authors must explain in the article:
1- Why was a limited sample of 106 people selected? Can we generalize to other countries?
2- Why was the data processing method not explained clearly?
3- Lack of information about independent and dependent variables
4- Failure to examine the compatibility of the system with the current infrastructure of hospitals
5- Inadequate analysis of comparisons
6- Poor statement of research limitations
I request that the article be resubmitted for refereeing after these ambiguities are resolved.
Thank you
.
.
In agreement with the opinions of reviewers, I suggest a major revision.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff 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.
About the presentation of the article
1. All images in the paper have low resolution and appear blurry, making the content difficult to read, particularly in Figure 7.
2. Additionally, the caption for Figure 1 is "Proposed methodology for blockchain-based D-SCM." If I understand correctly, it should be B-SCM.
About the content of the article
The paper presents a decentralized framework using Binance blockchain to create a Blood Supply Chain Management Systems application. In addition, the paper also implements the AdaBoost algorithm to effectively predict the availability of blood banks and the nearest blood donors.
For management systems that require transparency, such as blood banks, Blockchain is a reasonable approach to ensure Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability.
However, the paper also leads to many questions:
1. The author uses the Binance blockchain (public blockchain), which leads to gas fees. Why does the author not use private blockchains (free) such as HyperLedger Fabric, etc., as the studies presented in related words?
2. In the paper, in the "Donor registration phase" Step 2, PK_DR, and PR_DR are collected. I am unsure which entity will collect the private key and why the private key was collected.
3. Regarding the AdaBoot algorithm, "AdaBoost algorithm for efficiently predicting the nearest blood bank and blood donor availability."
- The paper does not clearly state the rationale behind using the AdaBoost algorithm.
- Will this algorithm be integrated on-chain or off-chain?
- Table 4 compares the performance of the AdaBoost algorithm with other algorithms such as MLP, SVM, KNN, etc. However, it would not work for me if the authors did not use the same dataset as this paper.
I checked the attached source code and found
1. File blood.sol does not have any content or code.
2. no implementation related to the AdaBoost algorithm found
3. In the main.py file I found the author uses the Python geopy library to calculate the distance. Therefore, I doubt the efficiency and necessity of the AdaBoost algorithm.
no comment
The paper is well-structured and generally maintains a professional tone. However, there are areas for improvement:
1. Minor inconsistencies in spelling ("Unviersity" instead of "University").
2. Figure quality could be improved. some figures appear pixelated, especially from Figure 7 to Figure 11.
3. The study clearly defines its objective. Yet, a clearer connection between the hypothesis and results is needed: the impact of AdaBoost and blockchain integration should be more explicitly linked to the hypothesis. --> A clear and concise summary of key findings should be added in relation to the initial research question, which emphasizes how the proposed system outperforms existing approaches.
The paper presents original primary research on blockchain integration for blood supply chain management, which aligns well with the journal's scope and the study clearly defines its research question. However:
1. While the research gap is identified, it could be more explicitly stated in a dedicated research gap section within the literature review.
1- If feasible, mention the computing environment used for training the AdaBoost model: hardware and libraries.
2- Strengthen the practical implications in the conclusion by briefly discussing potential real-world deployment challenges and benefits.
1- The abstract effectively summarizes the study, but it must briefly mention key experimental results.
2- The paper chooses BSC over Ethereum or Hyperledger Fabric, but the justification should be stronger. While lower transaction fees and scalability are mentioned, a quantitative comparison would make this claim stronger.
Hello
I read the article carefully. The topic of the article and the sources used are in line with current world standards. I only have a few points to improve your article:
1- The text of the article is written in a very specialized manner. Especially in the methodology section. If possible, the content should be expanded to make it easier for the reader to analyze the topic.
2- In the final section, the limitations of the research are not clearly stated. Also, the authors should have a practical comparison. The topics discussed in the future should be stated analytically.
'no comment'
'no comment'
'no comment'
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.