Analysis of Demand and Supply for Mobile Payments in the UAE during COVID-19

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting an well written paper. The paper is generally sound. However, there are two main areas that need to be revised.

1) The literature discussion in the related work section needs to be a little bit better organised to distinguish between international research on the topic - which should also be expanded - and UAE/Gulf specific research. Any specific local features can also be brought out here

2) the conclusions need to tie back into the international literature more

Author Response

Thanks for the constructive feedback which we believe has strengthened the study. 

1) The literature discussion in the related work section needs to be a little bit better organised to distinguish between international research on the topic - which should also be expanded - and UAE/Gulf specific research. Any specific local features can also be brought out here

Our Response: The literature was revised and updated with more international references. A global view on the topic as well as the local is now captured before and during COVID-19

2) The conclusions need to tie back into the international literature more

Our response: A new conclusion has been crafted

Reviewer 2 Report

I read the summary with great interest. I think studying the impact of COVID-19 on various aspects of life is crucial for us right now. On the one hand, the BISE Report is one of the first in the field of payments, and on the other hand, research in individual countries.

 

Based on the reading of the article, the following observations arise. I would like to mention that the comments are intended to support the authors to improve the quality of the article.

 

1. It seems crucial to adopt your definition of mobile payment. It is nice that the authors separate the concept of mobile banking from mobile payment, but it is not the subject of this article. It suggests considering the introduction of the concept of mobile payments according to several authors, including the latest approach.

2. Secondly, the authors refer to mobile payments as novelties. But still? The authors write that they have been operating in the United Arab Emirates since 2014, so they have been on the market for some time. Nevertheless, it is still a topic worth exploring in scientific publications.

3. It is also worth referring to the classification of mobile payments on Payments: Remote and Proximity.

4. The article lacks a clear indication of how this article differs from the others. What is new in the scientific literature? What research gap does it fill?

5. There are no hypotheses to prove.

6. Literature review is poor. It requires more insight and deepening. Reference should be made mainly to those items that highlight mobile payments, pointing to the innovative and new nature of this article.

7. It is not entirely clear what the article's purpose is. Reading the literature review, one has the impression of a large generalization and only an indirect connection to the topic.

8. Please present in the text the question's wording constituting the dependent variable (MPS).

9. Characteristics of the sample are missing.

10. Table numbers should be numbered 1,2,3.

11. Each table should be referenced in the text.

12. The research methodology should be clarified, including the purpose, hypotheses, research group, size, duration of the study, area of research, number of questions in the survey, what is the nature of the questions, what they concern, etc.

13. There is no deeper reference to the literature regarding the selection of the research method. How have other authors studied it?

Author Response

Thanks for the constructive feedback which we think has strengthened the study. Our response for all comments is shown below and has been added to the manuscript
1) It seems crucial to adopt your definition of mobile payment. It is nice that the authors separate the concept of mobile banking from mobile payment, but it is not the subject of this article. It suggests considering the introduction of the concept of mobile payments according to several authors, including the latest approach.	The term MPS definition has now been added and the introduction has now been amended accordingly
2) Secondly, the authors refer to mobile payments as novelties. But still? The authors write that they have been operating in the United Arab Emirates since 2014, so they have been on the market for some time. Nevertheless, it is still a topic worth exploring in scientific publications.	The journey towards a cashless society takes a considerable amount of time to start and move forward and it has never been without obstacles. Like in many other countries, although started early this ultimate goal is still far reaching and ongoing. According to Srouji (2020), the UAE economy remains heavily cash-reliant accounting for 67% of the total value of payments in 2019.
3) It is also worth referring to the classification of mobile payments on Payments: Remote and Proximity.	These classification terms have been added in the introduction. However, the term MPS was used in the study to refer to mobile payment using mobile wallets through mobile phones.
4) The article lacks a clear indication of how this article differs from the others. What is new in the scientific literature? What research gap does it fill?	Much research focused on adoption by identifying factors influencing people's intentions to use mobile payments. However, far less has dealt with the demand and supply requirements for a successful adoption. This research looks at COVID 19 impact on mobile payment services from the supply-demand perspective.   The significance of this study is that it will add to the research of previous scholars, as many research papers talk about mobile payments and their importance or what people think of them. Further, it will contribute to the literature as there was a gap recently to understand the impact of COVID-19 on mobile payments in the UAE.
5) There are no hypotheses to prove.	The following two hypotheses were added to the study H1: There is a significant relationship between demand & Supply, and MPS before COVID 19 H2: There is a significant relationship between demand & Supply, and MPS after COVID 19
6) Literature review is poor. It requires more insight and deepening. Reference should be made mainly to those items that highlight mobile payments, pointing to the innovative and new nature of this article.	.The related work section was revised and updated with more international references. A global view on the topic as well as the local is now captured before and during COVID-19
7) It is not entirely clear what the article's purpose is. Reading the literature review, one has the impression of a large generalization and only an indirect connection to the topic.	As stated in the introduction, the study's goal was to examine the impact of COVID-19 on customers' use of mobile payments in the UAE from the supply and demand perspective.
8) Please present in the text the question's wording constituting the dependent variable (MPS).	The research question “What is the impact of COVID 19 on the MPS from the demand & Supply perspective in the UAE” has been added in the introduction
9) Characteristics of the sample are missing.	Added to the text. The only criteria to be included in the survey is to have MPS implemented in those to respond
10) Table numbers should be numbered 1,2,3.	Changed
11) Each table should be referenced in the text.	Done
12) The research methodology should be clarified, including the purpose, hypotheses, research group, size, duration of the study, area of research, number of questions in the survey, what is the nature of the questions, what they concern, etc.	The research framework and methodology have been revised

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for answering questions, observations and doubts. The attached manuscript is missing in the working version showing where changes have been made (the red place where changes were done) Without this manuscript, a final evaluation is not possible.

Author Response

My apology but the required file was attached in the last review. I'm attaching it again. 

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx