The Research Trend of Security and Privacy in Digital Payment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The aim of the paper is to synthesize the literature on privacy and security risk of digital payment. The literature has been evaluated towards presenting the number of studies per year (Fig. 3), countries contributed to the field of digital payment (Table 1), influential journals in the field of digital payment (Table 2), the most influential studies based on citation number (Table 4), and co-citation analyses.

The abstract includes the following sentence: “According to our assessment, academics have continued to focus on the perceived privacy and security, while more multi-group analyses based on sub-dimensions of risk is needed, including service related-risk, platform related-risk, network related-risk, and device related-risk.”. However, the paper is not related in the further part to these types of risk (“service related-risk, platform related-risk, network related-risk, and device related-risk”).

 

In my opinion, inserting year 2022 in Fig. 3 is pointless, because it is still continued.

Description of Fig. 2 should be proofread (now there is the phrase “Netwrok Anlaysis”).

The title of Table 2 should include the word "journals" instead "journal".

The title of Fig. 6 “risks antecedents and outcomes” sounds strange and it should be rephrased. Moreover, a few phrases in Fig. 6 have greater size (e.g., “Attitude”, “Perceived usefulness”) than others. Is it on purpose?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Although the authors addressed some of the concerns raised earlier, there are still a few more issues that need to be addressed before publishing.

• Double-check the line spacing between figures and paragraphs. In Fig. 6, the first letter of the caption should be capitalized. After Fig. 5, insert a period.
• In Fig. 1, use a consistent caption format; some captions are in lower case, while others are not.
• The captions for the figures and tables should be consistent and follow the journal layout. Some sentences end with a period, whereas others do not. Please go through it again.
• In Fig. 4. “Most co-cited studies,” it will look better if study 1 and study 2 text are positioned in the center, the rest are good.
• P. 176, “Journals and rank them from 4* to 1. 4* represents…..” Is there any significance to the asterisk “*”? If so, specify it; it would be better if they were presented in ascending sequence, such as “4* to 1. 4*” being changed to “1. 4* to 4*”.
• Abbreviations stated in the paper should be defined. If they are only used once, there is no need to include the abbreviation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is structured by IMRAD principles. It has rich literacy review with more than 100 publications. The authors  effective implemented classical methods of bibliographic analyses.

1. The authors should explain why they choose only the Scopus database for analyses. Why didn't they also count Web of Science? They can combine Scopus and WoS together and also they can compare results of publications analysis from these 2 bases.
2. Also it is not evident that literacy review can be the basis for pointing to some practical problem. The authors should add some comparisons of their analyses results with practical statistics, for example in China as they conclude it as the most progressed country in the topic.  
3. In Discussions it should be more explained about the author's idea about  tfew theories addressing the cultural aspects of digital 404 payment users. Thus, we conclude that the theoretical and ontological frameworks avail and digital payment; 
4. There should be a connection to the global trend to  smart city development and its influence on digital payment and digital culture.
5. The application of the author's findings is not sufficiently explained and connected with statistics.
6. Authors concentrate on bibliographic analysis so there should be more details and explanation about their findings for applied science in the field of  digital payments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article performed a systematic review and Bibliometric analysis of digital payment. This article needs careful English proofreading and editing. This study will be valuable. But how it is valuable? In the introduction, the importance of the digital and wechat payment in the e-commerce should be cited (i.e. Financial Innovation in Digital Payment with WeChat towards Electronic Business Success) and elaborated. Although this article reviewed the exiting studies of digital payment, but there is tone of related research. The value and contributions of the current study is not clear. This is also important to differentiate with other literature. The research questions of this review are also not clear. Thus, the reasons for refining the sample to certain application is not clear. The reason of conducting the Bibliometric analysis and the details of performing such analysis are missing. To me, the current method is simply a descriptive analysis. Discussions and conclusion should be separated.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In my opinion, the contribution of the paper is not sufficient to publish it in the scientific journal. The results of data analysis are superficial, for example, the authors wrote in the conclusion (lines 338-340) “The investigation adds to the body of knowledge by making the following significant findings: (1) The United States contributed the most to the prevalent  literature on digital payment, while African countries contributed the least;”; this is very general statement and it is hard to find the receiver for this information; the title of last section is “Discussion and Conclusion”, and it suggests discussion regarding findings. Moreover, the authors used only Scopus database to collect data; why authors did not use Web of Science database, similar to the research presented in:

Sahi, A. M., Khalid, H., Abbas, A. F., & Khatib, S. F. (2021). The Evolving Research of Customer Adoption of Digital Payment: Learning from Content and Statistical Analysis of the Literature. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(4), 230.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This work investigates “The research trend of digital payment: A literature review and bibliometric analysis”. However, the scientific merit and novelty of the proposed approach are not clear. It may be worthwhile to include a digital payment study trend, but the authors should conclude the benefits and drawbacks of digital payment based on existing research rather than relying solely on available literature. Additionally, authors should focus on the following points: • The most serious concerns in digital payments are privacy and security risks, which expose customers, merchants, and markets to vulnerabilities. What are the possibilities and how can they be overcome? Rather than summarizing accessible literature, it would be best to emphasize on these aspects, as this may have an impact on the readers. • Include literature that highlights how digital payments operate in terms of privacy and security. • The Authors mentioned “The systematic review approach utilized in this research consisted of five steps…,” substantiate the steps precisely. Minor suggestions: • Figure 1 is unclear, try to maintain 300 dpi. Furthermore, the sentence case of labels in the Figure is inconsistent, for example, in the initial sample, the letter 's' is capitalized while the other letters are lowercase, and similarly for the Scopus database and the keywords in the box. Please modify accordingly. • Figures caption should be terminated with a period (.) • Keep two or three digits after the decimal points, as in Table 1, where the column Avg. Citations had 4 digits after decimals but only three for Avg. Pub. Year. As a result, please keep the format of technical writing consistent. • The presentation of Table 1 is a mess. Divide the table into two columns with a border to make the country's presentation more apparent. • Table 5: The first bracket under the author's bibliography is missing; double-check. • Double-check the sentence and paragraph alignment.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept in the current form.

Reviewer 2 Report

I my opinion, the contribution of the paper is not sufficient to publish it in the scientific journal. I think that the usefulness of the presented analysis is very limited for researchers, digital payment provides and policymakers, who are mentioned by the authors in lines 112-113.

The text includes many mistakes, e.g. enumeration “Second”, “Fourth” are mentioned in lines 99-104, and where is “Third”?

“Second, through our analysis, we highlight the research gaps that researchers in this field overlooked by providing a thorough grasp of the research that writers are conducting and the trends in the literature in terms of co-citations and geographic region of interest. Fourth, our review differs from the literature that dealt with a review of this field in that it provides a comprehensive analysis of the literature on digital payment.”

Reviewer 3 Report

I couldn't discover any uniqueness or scientific benefits in the current paper, despite the fact that there are many articles and review articles that describe the bibliometric analysis on digital payment and financial banking. At the same time, the authors merely attempt to address the concerns rather than altering the core problems. 

Furthermore, rather than summarizing previous studies, a current challenges literature analysis on mobile/digital payment privacy and security would be better. This could have a greater impact on the general readers.